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
mustang22       4/22/2009 5:06:54 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



Its not over yet, LM knows they are wasting their time with him. Congress is the only thing that can keep the F-22 alive. Past history shows us how much leverage defense contractors have, if Congress wants the F-22 around longer than its their decision to make.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Cleaned up with a follow up.   4/22/2009 5:09:24 PM

You are both technically incompetent and not telling the truth poster. You were arguing a priori the cost comparison of 60 F-22s versus one Ford Class carrier.

You are also not the voice of reason as your arguments descended to calling others liars. CREF above and check a mirror. for the nearest distorter of the "truth" to your person.

Herald



Herald, you have got nothing to contribute. My technical competence is leaps and bounds better than yours, you can make no argument.  You don't know strategy and you have no clue about practicality. Just like you tried to tell me you though that they should bring the F-23 into service as an intern solution for your SinoPhobic fears. Just like you tried to ram the idea of "Missile for Merchants" down Rocky's throats and a anti-pirate solution. You are nothing more than a techno-fanboy who is(or should be) in a learning capacity. You could not help but to feed you ego today so you posted this garbage while Phaid, Mustang, Rocky, V^2 and myself are all managing to disagree quite a bit without calling each other names or liars. Bring a case that supports whatever theory you are pondering or get lost. You are dismissed...

-DA


1. I didn't tell you a damned thing about the YF-23, poster. I brought that up in a reply to PHAID, ROCKY, GF, and EVIL FISHY in reply to a question one of them posed about a question about the Israelis using an aircraft (Typhoon) when it was raised that the Sparky might be i9n trouble.

 

2, This faux pas, (which you made) shows; long after you went off the rails at page 16 of this massive ego trip that you are on; shows that you have lost sight of who you are and what your qualifications actually amount to.

 

3. I posed a simple test for you, poster, that you ran away from rather than try to answer.

 

So let me tell you what you revealed:

 -when cornered you lash out calling people biased and liars without a scintilla of proof.

-you think that your opinion is sacrosanct and that you are better than your opponents. If they trap you in error or show that you don't have the foggiest clue as to what you discuss, you try to run away from the point and shout your opponent down.

-when you lie, you try to reverse that and call your opponent the liar.

-when you make a technical comment you don't even know what you discuss enough to understand why what you wrote is so incompetent that a six year old child sees it.

 

I could go on, but you are so full of yourself that you are a waste of bandwidth.


The trouble here is that I am arrogant and can back it up. You are arrogant and you have nothing. You can't even get the physics of shooting right! Pulling a trigger and driving a truck does not make you qualified, poster. Knowing the physics and the technology makes you qualified to have an opinion in this topic .

 

You don't. Read that again, YOU don't. I'm seriously beginning to doubt your competence across the board on ANY subject. I sure as hell don't see you as being a COMBAT tactician or leader of troops, much less an instructor. You don't have any qualities technical or emotional that I would trust around teenagers to be trained or led. I regard you more as a rather ineffective FOBBIT based on your presentations, ineffectual boasting and protests here.

 

Let me give a lesson:

 

You remember that UAS you cited?

 

Here is the class engine:

 

It is the JT15D series. 

 

General characteristics

  • Type: Turbofan

  • Length: 60.5 inches

  • Diameter: 27 inches

  • Dry weight: 500 pounds estimated (unofficial, based on Viper Fanjet specifications)

Components

  • Compressor: Axial flow LP, centrifugal flow HP

 Performance

  • Thrust: 3,050 pounds or about 13,000 Newtons

  • Thrust to Weight ratio: 5/1 (approximation)

For useful payload, you have a lot of guesswork as to wingspan and vehicle length but if you use the incompetent  artist's impression......you get something smaller than Global Hawk for that class turbofan. 

 

That pretty much limits the size of that turkey you cited to about the size of a Cessna 172. 

 

 

Length: about eight meters 

Wingspan: about 11-13 meters (perspective is tough to sort)

Gross mass: about 2000 kilograms dry, 3300 kilograms wet. 

Fuel fraction to gross loaded mass: 20 to 30 %

 

So we get an endurance of about six to ten hours at a cruising speed (wings reveal this) of about Mach 0.6  and an absolute altitude of no more than 13,000 meters which defines it as a MALE and not a HALE 

 

That turbofan is not made with an afterburner, so no reheat is possible, and its axial flow design is fractionally insufficient for supersonic super cruise. (Do you even know what I just wrote?) so..........

 

What you got is very similar to the NeuRON, a jet propelled recon bird  German and Spanish prototype  (it can't carry any weapons) and just about as incompetently designed..

 

Now you want to tell me you are qualified to have an opinion on THIS topic, poster? In anything else either, besides your rather limited MOS?

 

Herald


Let's look at what you would need to replace 800 F-35 units?

 

You might want to build a dedicated attack plane that you can send on a pre-programmed strike mission  It would have to operate from an aircraft carrier to be mission useful for a seapower that would have to fight from its aircraft carriers to mount an air campaign after its forward bases (Kadema and Andersen) are destroyed.

 

Startiong now and in service in ten years what are we trying to build?

 

Everything starts with the engine. For this exercise I want a lightweight engine in production built by a US manufacturer that gives me a long MTBF to reduce my maintenance load. One that I can IR mask easily as well as duct into the working body of the boomerang shaped fighter attack plane I intend to use.


The candidate is the F-414, a turbofan engine that has a long stable history and is used aboard the FA-18/A-F Super Hornet.


Logical since the engine is already in inventory, and is known to the USN.


Its a robot plane so a single engine will be sufficient.


General characteristics

  • Type: Non after-burning turbofan

  • Length: 154 in (3,912 mm)

  • Diameter: 35 in (889 mm)

  • Dry weight: 2750 lb. (1250 kgs.)

Components

  • Compressor: axial compressor with 3 fan and 7 compressor stages

  • Turbine: 1 low-pressure and 1 high-pressure stage

Performance

In effect we are designing a 12,500 kilogram dry-weight aircraft and we are replacing the 1000 kilograms of pilot and support equipment with 1000 kilograms of artilect computer, secure telemetry and fuel. Notice that thios does not necessaroily decrease the cost of the single engined bird or increase its payload at all? If you trade the avionics for the pilot the net savings is ZERO. On the other hand you can make tens of thousands of geek supervised artilects in a ten year factory run whereas your pilot candidates may only be a few thousand out of a sample pool of millions.


Any rate the result should look a lot like this (somewhat larger).

 
 


-It ought to be able to be able to carry about 2000 kilograms of weapons in a single internal bomb bay

-It should have a mission endurance if its fuel fraction is 30% at Mach 0.8 of about ten hours.

-Size wise, it will be about the size of a small Viking.


General characteristics

  • Crew: robot and tele-operation

  • Length: 40 ft (12..2 m)

  • Wingspan : 60 ft (18.3 m)

  • Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

  • Wing area: 500 ft² (50.1 m²)

  • Airfoil: root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

  • Empty weight: 27,560 lb (12,500 kg)

  • Loaded weight: 35,500 lb ( 17,030 kg)

  • Maximum Takeoff weight: 40,075 lb (18,175 kg)

  • Powerplant: See above specified jet engine.

Performance

* Cruise speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,077 km/h)

  • Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

  • Ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

  • Climb rate: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

  • Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

  • Thrust/weight 0.51

  • g-limit: -3/+15 g

Just some more ammunition from the "techno-fanboy " who should be in a "learning capacity" as you truy to teach him  you totalkly6 unqualified commentator you.
 
Now the architecture for tele-operations is OTS hardware and software already developed for  Global Hawk, but note that Ku and X band telemetry isn't cheap, poster.........
 
 
You need encryption, two way constant data-link, constant IFF interrogation of controller and robot and so forth. Funny I said all of this twenty pages ago.
 
Who is the student here?
 
It isn't me.
 
YOU ARE DISMISSED.
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/22/2009 5:21:05 PM

Its not over yet, LM knows they are wasting their time with him. Congress is the only thing that can keep the F-22 alive. Past history shows us how much leverage defense contractors have, if Congress wants the F-22 around longer than its their decision to make.

You can stick a fork in F-22 procurement.  It's done.  Few jobs will be lost, as the contractors and subs will shift their people to other projects.  Such as F-35, which we actually will acquire in quantity and, its being exported or licensed abroad, will bring needed foreign exchange into the US economy.  6G air dominance, here we come . . .

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    TRY top do a CBA, huh?   4/22/2009 5:32:32 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.

It adds about 15% to the unit production cost per bird. I'm just picking up what Warpig brought up and showing  you, what the trade-offs and choices are; and what they might cost. Its very likely that the Sparky, like the Falcon its intended to replace will be in production long after the initial run is finished. 2600 units programmed could easily exceed 3000 when its all over.  The Falcon's initial run wasn't expected to exceed 3000 units. We are at 4500 F-16 units and counting.

That UCAS I outlined which would be the 800 units that you replace; would cost about $65 million per bird.factoring in sunk X-47 costs and OTS components to build it. But that is what that unqualifoed poster said we could do to replace the F-22..
 
Note what the UCAS cannot do though? It cannot fight A2A at all
 
This is part of what I keep trying to tell those of you who argue that the 187 F-22 number is sufficient or that we can get by with the rest of the incompetent Gates program.
 
Now I gave you the numbers YET AGAIN. Just so you iunderstand what you said I readback "You say that cutting the Sparkies 1/3 will kill that program." Keep that in mind in six months if and WHEN that program is CUT in the next round of defense cuts as the lost Afghan war winds down.
 
Because that is the same argument that some of us use to keep the F-22 program running. Never mind that LockMart screwed up the first 90 birds and that we have to rebuild them, or that 187 birds cost 15-18% more per copy than 243 birds......
 
You thus just shot yourself in the foot, JFKY. Never walk into the other guy's argument unless you know where he strings you along.
 
Give them enough rope and they hang themselves.   
 
Herald 


 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No Need to be   4/22/2009 6:37:36 PM
an A$$ Herald.  It was an honest question, and an honest concern...I'm not reading thru a 600-plus comment thread for the Numbers someone produced....this isn't some graduate seminar.  So lighten up Francis.
 
So you are willing to inflict on the F-35 the same problems the F-22 experienced, increased costs due to decreased tun...are 60 birds really worth it?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I watched the exchange withn Evil Fishy   4/22/2009 7:15:26 PM
Civility was in short supply there, JFKY.
 
I don't want to kill the Sparky because I see it as a UCAS short route if the Gates boloed DoD program manages to pass Congress, as he seems hellbent on ramming it through. We will need something to rush into service as an interim robot once the Chicoms ramp up their own IADS. Not happy about it, because as a UCAS the Sparky is not ideal, but its cockpit can be gutted and the comms and the computer can be shoved in. An aircraft is an aircraft. The DASS it has will be almost perfect for a computer if we can write the software for it. 
 
What i want though is a cheap robot that can foire standoff weapons that we can afford to lose in the tens and twenties when we have to peel the onion.
 
A UCAS in the twenty million dollart range is about the upper cost limit since we will lose four times as many of those in combat as we will manned aircraft at least for the next thirty years.

CBA.
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/22/2009 7:44:59 PM

Welcome to FAIL JFKY. So far you have demonstrated nothing but a categorical ignorance of anything and everything involving the United States Constitution.

BASIC LOGIC has disproved what you have said.
COMMON KNOWLEDGE has disproved what you have said.
The US CONSTITUTION disproves what you have said.

You can ignore reality all you like and substitute logical fallacy and stupidity in its place but that does not alter reality in any meaningful way.

---JFKY---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.---

FAIL!

The Electoral college does not ALWAYS elect the President. Perhaps were you aware of the Constitution (Article II Section I) or even basic history (John Q. Adams ring a bell?) you would know this.

Article II Section I--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.---

Which is it? Does the President serve a FEW HUNDRED AMERICANS in the electoral college SOMETIME or does he serve a FEW HUNDRED AMERICANS in the Congress SOMETIMES?

The Constitution is quite clear whom the President serves:

Preamble: ---We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.---

---JFKY---And as long as that coalition of people represents 270 Electoral Votes, that person is POTUS.---

FAIL!


A person can have that coalition of electoral votes and NOT BE PRESIDENT.

Article II Section 4: ---Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. ---

---JFKY---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.---

FAIL!

The United States Constitution, not any ideology or politics is the Supreme Law of the Land.

Article VI ---This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.---

---JFKY---The SecDef has NO Constitutional duties...find me the Section or Article of the Constitution giving any Cabinet Secretary duties.---

FAIL!

To say the SecDef has NO Constitutional duties is to say the SecDef has no duty to follow the constitution and therefore can go AGAINST the Constitution of the Untied States. According to the constitution, via the oath the President is REQUIRED to take upon taking office, the person whom the SecDef serves (although not his only boss) this is breech of contract and an impeachable offense.
Just because Gates is not personally named in Article II does not mean his is not under the authority of the Constitution.

Article II: Section 1. ---Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ---

---JFKY---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.----

FAIL!

Article VI ---This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.---

While the SPECIFICS of their duties may be set by the governing body, all duties, etc fall with in the purview and under the regulation of the US CONSTITUTION.

---JFKY---So, no Gates has NO "Constitutional" duty to serve the "nation"-whatever THAT is, first.---

FAIL!

Article II: Section 1. ---Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ---

 Article VI ---This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.---

Article II Section 4: ---Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. ---

---JFKY---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. ---

FAIL!

The Electoral college does not ALWAYS elect the President. Perhaps were you aware of the Constitution (Article II Section I) or even basic history (John Q. Adams ring a bell?) you would know this.

Article II Section I--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.---

---JFKY---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.---

FAIL!

Assertion presented as FACT (which is FALSE).

---JFKY---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."---

FAIL!

Article II Section I--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.---

 Article II: Section 1. ---Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ---

 Article VI ---This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.---

Article II Section 4: ---Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. ---

 There; I just demonstrated your categorical ignorance using no other document than the Untied States Constitution.

Acquire an education boyo: you have been weighed and found wanting!

 
Quote    Reply

Beazz    Herald & Company   4/22/2009 9:25:21 PM
DA is apparently in *time out* from SP till Monday. He is over on F-16.net now educateing everyone there as to why 187 F-22s is plenty, and of course, all other things known to exist in any and all brances of the military.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That is a rough USAF heavy bunch over there.    4/22/2009 9:35:30 PM

DA is apparently in *time out* from SP till Monday. He is over on F-16.net now educating everyone there as to why 187 F-22s is plenty, and of course, all other things known to exist in any and all branches of the military.

 

Beazz


I'll be interested to see what they do to him. 
 
Anyway, I'm trying to tone it way down.
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/22/2009 10:06:55 PM




DA is apparently in *time out* from SP till Monday. He is over on F-16.net now educating everyone there as to why 187 F-22s is plenty, and of course, all other things known to exist in any and all branches of the military.



 



Beazz






I'll be interested to see what they do to him. 

 

Anyway, I'm trying to tone it way down.

 

Herald


 

 

 

 

 


 

LOL>.. uh huh... Herald tone it down? That'll be the day ;-)) Anyhow, he's over there just waiting for ya Herald ;-) I figured you might *surprise* him ;-) Here's the thread link But they are a much more toned down lot then here, trust me on that one lol Couple guys on here I have seen there but no where near the *spirited* debate there as here between certain folks ;-)
Here's a sample of DA from there:
I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Airwing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its Migs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA
I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Airwing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its Migs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA
I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Airwing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its Migs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA
I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Airwing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its Migs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA
BDF wrote:
How many combat coded jets does 187 give you? Can you specificy how Ao and MC rates effect said force's ability to conduct the mission sets assigned or required by the JCC? You mention China, can you elaborate on daily sortie generation rates with the various available basing in the PacRim? How does that compare to China's capabilities?


About 120 roughly. With the rest assigned to training, test, spare and back up. With an F-22? I wouldn't count on having the MC any greater than about 80%~85%(I know they get much higher in training like at Kadena recently). So I'd plan on a paltry 96 to 100 actually ready to fight an any given time. The F-22 being designed around Cold War European range requirement means its got short legs considering the size of the Pacific. I'd skip Guam and go for FWD basing out of Japan. That Depending on the mission and reasons for being there I'd go with anywhere between 48 to 96 in the AO. For instance show of force rapid deployment to deter some aggression. Depending on how many actually deployed, and I can't arbitrarily tell you how many without knowing specifics about the reason for a conflict, I'd guestimate being able to generate 70 to 120 sorties a day MAX using 1.5 average sortie rate to factor in murphy and rounding down. Of course I'd supplement my F-22's with legacy platforms such as the F-15 and USN Superbugs and eventually F-35s.

Considering the PRC has about 200 to 250 late model 4th Gen aircraft out of the 600 to 1000 PLAAF/PLANAF they could cram into basing close enough to operate in the same AO, say Taiwan for instance, I think 48 to 96 F-22's would be enough of a silver bullet force to augment the legacy platforms such that the Chinese would not want to squander their PLAAF. Also, the PRC has limited ability to operate beyond GCI, little in the way of AEW and almost no tangible tanking to speak of. So unless I was going to operate over PRC proper, I don't think the ratio of F-22's to bad guys is bad at all.

-DA
 
Gee, sounds like a broken recording huh? lol
 
Beazz

I agree with the SecDef on this one. I say 50/50 congress will save it. But my opinion is that through 2025-2027 we will have adequate to superior air power with the curent plans and the 13 billion dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

Most threat nations can't put enough combat jets or IADS up to overpower a Carrier Airwing much less the USAF through this time frame. The PRC and Russia are just hanging on in terms of having to take them seriously with regard to capability but they are not at the peer level and won't be in this timeframe outside a major technological break through. Russia can't keep its Migs in fighting shape and the Chinese are struggling to make jet engines without help from Russia. Who does that leave? North Korea, Iran maybe? Those nations would be fighting just as deaf dumb and blind as Iraq did in 1991 against the systems level dominance we can apply.

It really is time to move on and orient the DoD to the kinds of threats we will face next decade which are AK-47 armed Pirates, Taliban, Cyber Attack, Drug Wars, ballistic missiles and submarines. Its not likely anybody will repeat Saddams errors any time soon and choose direct force on force warfare.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz    Ooops.. Sorry   4/22/2009 10:08:51 PM
For all those reposts of DA. I didn't see that it took when I pasted it ;-(
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Yeah they spotted him real quick   4/22/2009 10:12:14 PM
Too many professional jet drivers for him to bull any of them. Polite yes, but they will take him apart in quick order.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Photos of the Avenger, real cute bird.   4/23/2009 12:08:38 AM
 
 
 
 
PW500 series

PW530 PW535A PW545A PW545B
Thrust (lb) 2,887 3,400 3,952 4,119
Specific Fuel Consumption ((lb/h)/lbf) ? ? ? ?
Bypass Ratio ~3.7 2.55 4.12 4.12
Overall Pressure Ratio ~13.3 ? 11.7 12.5
Overall Length (in) 60.0 ? 68.6 68.6
Approximate Fan Diameter (in) 23.0 ? 27.3 27.3
 
Data: Pratt and Whitney
 
 
 
 
This bird has a 66.6 foot (20.1 meter wingspan) and 43 foot (13 meter) length.
 
Again it looks like a powered sail-plane. Its not exactly the artist's  concept drawing seen earlier.of a jet powered UAS.  Designed cruising speed is declared to be about 400-450 knots. or 740 - 830 k/h.  Altitude claimed is in excess of 50,000 feet or 15,000 meters.
 
Service bay underneath is expected to carry a SAR canoe or up to 1500 kilograms of bombs. This bird has a huge fuel fraction (40% based on the shoulder bulges seen in the wings?) so 20 hours in loiter is not outrageous as a claim. I do wonder about the altitude claims as the wing seems to have less than the required area for lift.for a true HALE (70,000 feet)
 
Anyway, its about the same size and probably 10% more mass as the MQ9-Reaper.
 
Nice redo. This was what General Atomics should have submitted for BAMS.
 
 
 
Herald
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/24/2009 1:42:59 AM
Lemme just jump in here - asked and answered maybe - please don;t hurt me -
 
but if the F-22 costs $150MM
 
and the F-35 costs $100MM
 
and we want, arguendo, +60 F-22
 
why not cut, arguendo, -90 F-35?
 
Now maybe the unit cost of the F-35 goes up a bit - though you might bury that in the fullness of time of the production run, or exploit the foreigners - but by the same logic the unit cost of the F-22 should go down.
 
The F-22s can do any F-35 mission, pretty much, so you are really only down 30 airframes.
 
So keep 30 F-16s or F-15s that you would otherwise have retired.
 
ISTM you are buying ten times as many JSFs as ATFs, so 30 or even 90 F-35 airframes plus or minus is like losing or gaining 3 or 9 F-22s, in other words, lost in the noise levels.
 
 
Is this too simple for the Puzzle Palace?  Or am I?
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/24/2009 2:02:40 AM

JFKY, you never answered my question: Whom does the President Serve?
blah blah blah who does who work for, yada yada yada.
 
This question is very simple.
 
 
from link
 
h*tp://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761581865

Elliot Richardson (1920-1999), American politician, lawyer, and government agency administrator. Richardson served in a number of top posts in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974). As attorney general of the United States in 1973, Richardson resigned rather than carry out Nixon's orders to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been investigating White House involvement in the 1972 break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C. The subsequent Watergate scandal led Nixon to resign the presidency.

from link
h*tp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761581525/Archibald_Cox.html
 
When Cox said that was unacceptable, Nixon ordered him fired. The top two officials at the Justice Department, Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, decided to resign rather than fire Cox. Solicitor General Robert Bork became acting attorney general and carried out the president's order. The resignations and firing became known collectively as the Saturday Night Massacre.
 
 
You see,  Nixon couldn't just fire Cox.  "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" couldn't fire Cox.  Only the AG could fire Cox because COX WORKED FOR THE AG.  I do believe Nixon could have fired Richardson, but as we see he resigned.
 
Can we get back to the shiny toys now?
 
 
 
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