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       4/17/2009 11:00:46 AM

Let us stipulate that one day the F-35 can carry more than 2 air to air missiles internally.  Today it carries two.  As of now there is no program for it to carry more than two.

 

So one day in the future it carries 4 or 6 missiles.  Exactly how effective might it be then compared to a F-22 and which aircraft is more cost effective to purchase in the air superiority role?

 

The F-35 is a stealthy strike fighter.  It's not, nor is it ever going to be, an air superiority fighter due to limitations inherent in it's design.  The ability to shoot down enemy aircraft does not an air superiority fighter make.


 
And this is why you cannot understand what's going on here. You are like the previous posters who did not understand that UCAV and UAV are the same. You do not understand the words you are using. Air Superiority is not a specific fighter. It's condition that is established by platforms and weapons. Many nations WILL USE the F-35 in the "air superiority role". And in that role, it's 400% more effective than DEDICATED fighters like the Typhoon. Before you can understand the thread, you have got to be familiar with the basic concepts.
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/17/2009 11:29:37 AM




Let us stipulate that one day the F-35 can carry more than 2 air to air missiles internally.  Today it carries two.  As of now there is no program for it to carry more than two.



 



So one day in the future it carries 4 or 6 missiles.  Exactly how effective might it be then compared to a F-22 and which aircraft is more cost effective to purchase in the air superiority role?



 



The F-35 is a stealthy strike fighter.  It's not, nor is it ever going to be, an air superiority fighter due to limitations inherent in it's design.  The ability to shoot down enemy aircraft does not an air superiority fighter make.






 

And this is why you cannot understand what's going on here. You are like the previous posters who did not understand that UCAV and UAV are the same. You do not understand the words you are using. Air Superiority is not a specific fighter. It's condition that is established by platforms and weapons. Many nations WILL USE the F-35 in the "air superiority role". And in that role, it's 400% more effective than DEDICATED fighters like the Typhoon. Before you can understand the thread, you have got to be familiar with the basic concepts.

-DA 

No most nations will use the F-35 because they cannot afford both types. Air Superiority is a condition as well as a designation. Do a search under F-22, F-15, F-14 or Mig-29, they all carry the designation. You are using verbage to try and discredit other posters valid arguments. Your 400% rule is also not rational. They stated 400% over comparable platforms Typoon and Su-30. You cannot use the F-15's ratio as a multiplier as it has not faced either of these fighters in combat and therefore the F-35 would hold a 4:1 advantage in stealth mode only.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 12:25:24 PM


No most nations will use the F-35 because they cannot afford both types. Air Superiority is a condition as well as a designation. Do a search under F-22, F-15, F-14 or Mig-29, they all carry the designation. You are using verbage to try and discredit other posters valid arguments. Your 400% rule is also not rational. They stated 400% over comparable platforms Typoon and Su-30. You cannot use the F-15's ratio as a multiplier as it has not faced either of these fighters in combat and therefore the F-35 would hold a 4:1 advantage in stealth mode only.

LOL using verbage? As in I'm the only person discussing this with the proper terms and with reference to doctrine? Of course! Air Superiority in this context is not a designation. It's a condition. When people label fighters as "Air Superiority" I understand what they mean. I know what you mean. But it is not just a designation. It's a condition created by many different "types" of platforms. You "Achieve" air superiority, not fly it, which means you use your resources to prevent the enemy from being able to use the air to disrupt your operations on land, sea and in the air. F-35's can achieve air superiority. 

Also, there is no such thing as "Stealth Mode". Sure, with external weapons the F-35 is going to be more vulnerable to detection. But much less that the 4th Gens. And it will operate in "Stealth Mode" when faced with serious threat of fighters of SAMs. It's not going to just have a 4:1. Its 400% more effective. There is a difference.


1. Air Superiority -- The Concept

Air superiority is a necessity. Since the German attack on Poland in 1939, no country has won a war in the face of enemy air superiority, no major offensive has succeeded against an opponent who controlled the air, and no defense has sustained itself against an enemy who had air superiority. Conversely, no state has lost a war while it maintained air superiority, and attainment of air superiority consistently has been a prelude to military victory. It is vital that national and theater commanders, their air component commanders, and their surface component commanders be aware of these historical facts, and plan accordingly.6
To be superior in the air, to have air superiority, means having sufficient control of the air to make air attacks on the enemy without serious opposition and, on the other hand, to be free from the danger of serious enemy air incursions. Of course, variations exist within the category of air superiority. 
 
h*tp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/wrdchp01.htm

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much   4/17/2009 12:33:55 PM
It's one thing to attempt to talk down to someone from a position of superior knowledge and/or understanding, it's often still less than entirely civil, but it's quite another to attempt to do so while being incorrect. An air superiority fighter is a specific type of aircraft: link The F-106 was an interceptor as was the MIG-25. The F-15 and F-22 are purpose built air superiority fighters. That is they are purpose built for the dedicated air superiority role. Your statements and tone are lacking in civility and frankly insulting as well as being factually inaccurate. The facts are the F-35 is not designed as air superiority fighter. It's inherent design is at odds in many parameters with the air superiority role. That someone may fly it as a fighter, interceptor, etc., does not change reality. If the Pentagon wants an aircraft for the primary mission of air superiority it is not the F-35. Your entire rationale originally was 187 F-22s were "enough". Now it appears you wish to argue the F-35 is a reasonable substitute for a dedicated air superiority fighter or further that such aircraft do not in fact exist. I have given you many opportunities to actually discuss the many points I have raised some of which you dismissed out of hand as unimportant while later raising these same points in support of your own positions. Now you're reduced to questioning my intelligence, knowledge, and even diction. With all due respect attempting to discuss anything here with you seems rather pointless. Finally your statement that the F-35 is 400% more effective than a Typhoon air to air requires some level of credible citations. It's in fact a tad ridiculous given zero stated parameters and thus less than informative. The RAF eventually will operate the F-35 and Typhoon and exactly how those two aircraft compare will eventually be something knowable. Right now it's a bit of supposition. This aside even if your number is accurate within that study or analysis were one to find the F-22 500% more effective than one might conclude the F-35 more cost effective. If however the F-22 were 1,000% more effective than your notion of cutting F-22 production in favor of future F-35's would have less merit. Since you have no idea how the F-22 compares, and have stated you not interested in such comparisons, you frankly have no idea what you are talking about and in fact are on record as having no desire to be so informed. In short sir you are acting like an ill mannered buffoon. And this is why you cannot understand what's going on here. You are like the previous posters who did not understand that UCAV and UAV are the same. You do not understand the words you are using. Air Superiority is not a specific fighter. It's condition that is established by platforms and weapons. Many nations WILL USE the F-35 in the "air superiority role". And in that role, it's 400% more effective than DEDICATED fighters like the Typhoon. Before you can understand the thread, you have got to be familiar with the basic concepts.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/17/2009 12:38:01 PM

So one day in the future it carries... 6 missiles.  Exactly how effective might it be then compared to a F-22 and which aircraft is more cost effective to purchase in the air superiority role?

The F-35 is a stealthy strike fighter.  It's not, nor is it ever going to be, an air superiority fighter due to limitations inherent in it's design.  The ability to shoot down enemy aircraft does not an air superiority fighter make.

If the only mission you were ever going to fly with those aircraft was air-to-air, and the threat was assessed to be what I'll just call 4th generation fighters-plus, and the prices are approximately $150million per F-22 and approximately $60million per F-35, I'd go with buying F-22s first until we had a bunch of them (unknown number that is threat-level-dependent), and then buy F-35s to give us some more platforms to fill in gaps, provide more-than-sufficient capability v. lesser threats, provide a second type for vulnerability reduction, etc.
If you mean the F-35 is never going to be sufficient as our only air superiority fighter, it doesn't have to be, because we also have F-22s and F-15s.  If shooting down aircraft does not an air superiority fighter make, it certainly does make for a fighter capable of gaining air superioriuty, and that works for me--especially since we also have F-22 and F-15 air superiority fighters to work with the F-35s that are gaining air superiority over the enemy.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    LB Reply   4/17/2009 12:59:24 PM

It's one thing to attempt to talk down to someone from a position of superior knowledge and/or understanding, it's often still less than entirely civil, but it's quite another to attempt to do so while being incorrect.

An air superiority fighter is a specific type of aircraft:
link...

The F-106 was an interceptor as was the MIG-25. The F-15 and F-22 are purpose built air superiority fighters. That is they are purpose built for the dedicated air superiority role.

Your statements and tone are lacking in civility and frankly insulting as well as being factually inaccurate.

The facts are the F-35 is not designed as air superiority fighter. It's inherent design is at odds in many parameters with the air superiority role. That someone may fly it as a fighter, interceptor, etc., does not change reality. If the Pentagon wants an aircraft for the primary mission of air superiority it is not the F-35.

Your entire rationale originally was 187 F-22s were "enough". Now it appears you wish to argue the F-35 is a reasonable substitute for a dedicated air superiority fighter or further that such aircraft do not in fact exist.

I have given you many opportunities to actually discuss the many points I have raised some of which you dismissed out of hand as unimportant while later raising these same points in support of your own positions. Now you're reduced to questioning my intelligence, knowledge, and even diction. With all due respect attempting to discuss anything here with you seems rather pointless.

Finally your statement that the F-35 is 400% more effective than a Typhoon air to air requires some level of credible citations. It's in fact a tad ridiculous given zero stated parameters and thus less than informative. The RAF eventually will operate the F-35 and Typhoon and exactly how those two aircraft compare will eventually be something knowable. Right now it's a bit of supposition. This aside even if your number is accurate within that study or analysis were one to find the F-22 500% more effective than one might conclude the F-35 more cost effective. If however the F-22 were 1,000% more effective than your notion of cutting F-22 production in favor of future F-35's would have less merit. Since you have no idea how the F-22 compares, and have stated you not interested in such comparisons, you frankly have no idea what you are talking about and in fact are on record as having no desire to be so informed. In short sir you are acting like an ill mannered buffoon.




I'd at least try to understand basic concepts before calling people buffoons. You knoweth not what you speak. You have no understanding of operational concepts which is why you can't comprehend how an F-35 is a net contributor to air superiority. I've exhaustively tried to explain this in both lay and professional terms with and without jargon. You just don't get it. Simply quibbling over how many air to air missiles are enough without being able to cite a SINGLE INSTANCE of a fighter going winchester and that affecting the outcome shows that not only do you misunderstand at the platform level, ie fighters aren't flying around trading half a dozen or more missile shots, but you also misunderstand at the systems level. Fighters on missions are not going to simply proceed on when 2 or more of their wingmen are blasted out of the sky because an opponent successfully lobbed a pair or air to air missiles into them by surprise.

Lower numbers of weapons is not indicative of a lack of capability. Rather it's a design choice rooted in the increased lethality. Notice bombs are also getting smaller and warplanes are carrying FEWER while at the same time destroying more targets. You do not have an argument period.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/17/2009 1:16:23 PM

Im well aware of the "stealth mode" concept, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps you can answer the questions I directed towards you on a previous post. I have made reference to them  more than once and they seem to keep getting overlooked. Quite possibly because they are questions you can't come up with a legitimate defense for.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 1:54:47 PM

Im well aware of the "stealth mode" concept, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps you can answer the questions I directed towards you on a previous post. I have made reference to them  more than once and they seem to keep getting overlooked. Quite possibly because they are questions you can't come up with a legitimate defense for.



I can defend any question from you about my position. Lets deal with them together one at a time. Ask your questions. If I don't know something or if it's my opinion, I'll tell you that. But thus far, I've covered to my satisfaction any questions you have asked. But I'll do so again if you still have them.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/17/2009 3:19:32 PM

DA,

 

You still have not addressed my question as to why we would need to spend a trillion dollars on a program that's mission could be performed by existing aircraft with sufficient F-22 support, especially in the low level conflicts you base your arguments on. Please explain to me where we stand once the F-22 line is closed and the unlikely and rare(sarcasm) event that a major weapons program is cancelled(F-35). Zumwalt, Seawolf(after 3 boats), FCS, Crusader, Sgt York, B1(until Reagan came along) just a few that haven't made it.


We can start with these.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/17/2009 3:23:43 PM




On the contrary, DA.  Where I think you and Gates are making a huge mistake is assuming that nothing will change in the next 15 years. 



 You can think that but then you will be wrong. Rather, try to understand what I'm saying. FORGET ABOUT HOW COOL THE F-22 is. Its just a tool in a tool box full of them. I'm not trying to patronize you and I offer an apology in advance. 



As I pointed out before, it's great and wonderful that we're working on 6th gen fighters.  Where are they? Are they ready for production in two years?  If so, I'll agree with the decision to cap the F-22.  If not, then we need something to bridge the gap.  The F-15 won't cut it.  By 2025, it'll be a 55 year old design.  55 years ago, the F-86 was frontline equipment, and technology moves faster today than it did in the 1950s. 



 That comment above is not logical. Why would we have or need a 6th Gen platform 6 years after the F-22 went IOC? WE DONT HAVE A FREAKIN GAP. We have an access abundance of air power. Also, you stating the F-15 wont cut it is plain wrong. New builds and upgrades are still being produced! An F-15 of 2009 is not the F-15 of the early 1980s. They are radically different and with next decades upgrades will be even more advanced. That plane has an enormous amount of growth potential due to size. You cannot compare it to an F-86. It's almost like you are being purposely blind to advances in technology. 




Ask yourself why if the F-15 wont be viable in 15 years, why are top rates high quality airforces like S Korea, Singapore and Israel buying and upgrading them? Why would Boeing roll out the F-15SE is the design was obsolete? You aren't making sense.





Okay, China and Russia are five years from their 5th gen fighters.  Great.  Wouldn't it be awesome to have a fleet of F-22s ready to confront such a threat, rather than relying on 4th generation fighters and the F-35--which won't be able to achieve the level of air superiority as the F-22--to pick up the slack?



 OK, I really must be in an alternate universe. WE HAVE F-22's. WE DON'T NEED F-35's to be F-22's. Just like we dont need F-16's to be F-15s. Sure roles overlap in some areas. But they are designed and procured based on different requirements. 




Face it, this is a political decision made without the input of the people who will be risking their ass if Gates and you are wrong.  Nothing good ever came out of political decisions made on weapons systems.  Again, if the government was making cuts across the board, I might feel better about this.  But they're not.  Obama's spending like money can be pulled off the cherry trees in Washington, yet he wants to cut necessary defense programs.  That should raise a very big "why?"  I mean, if he's going to run up a $9 trillion deficit and devote several billion to Hamas, then he should be able to get up off a few bil to keep the F-22 in low-scale production. 

I keep bringing up Barney Frank's snarky comment about the military not needing "fancy toys."  The Democrats have had the military in the crosshairs since last November.  This is just the start.



I know now why I get paid what I do. Sentinel, I'm not saying there isn't a counter argument to Gates and myself that has to be considered. But this circular error filled argument that the people on the site regurgitate over and over isn't it. Do you see the ease with which I'm able to factually counter all of this point by point?




-DA







DA, most of my arguments with you end up like this: you're som
 
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