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

Herald12345    Keep screaming it.   4/17/2009 7:07:47 PM
You are cooked.
 
Your word is no good.
 
Your claims are no good.
 
Its there in red.
 
Can't deny it, because I quoted one post where you said it.. I tried to give you an out, but you wouldn't take it.

Not my fault if your words showed you up.
 
Its not a lie if you wrote it.
 
If it is a lie, then you are the one who wrote the lie.
 
Make that check out to CARE and just chalk this one up to experience.
 
Don't argue and don't gamble unless you are SURE.
 . 
Herald 
 
 



 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    SURPRISE   4/17/2009 7:59:43 PM

 
I know Softwar posted the AvWeek. But because I mentioned this platform first earlier in this thread, I thought I'd post a picture for some context.



HERALD give up the lying. Its obvious and you are irrelevant. 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/17/2009 8:23:51 PM

Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 

The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States who serves at the discretion of the people of the United States of America.

Ergo the Secretary of Defense-s boss is Obama. His boss is ME, you and Herald. Therefore, he serves the PEOPLE.


 
Quote    Reply

locutus       4/18/2009 10:52:34 AM

  I also considered the fact that Russia is probably 6 years away from Initial Operating Capability of a fifth-generation fighter and the Chinese are 10 to 12 years away.
 This raises a question - can we detect LO/VLO aircraft?  During our efforts to develop stealth did we learn how to detect or defeat LO/VLO aircraft.  If so, could this have played a role in the decision to stop further production of the F-22?  Put another way, if there was no Obey amendment or ITARS restrictions on exporting the F-22 and countries such as Australia, Japan, or Korea requested the F-22, would the US do so?  If the requests were denied, would it be due to fear of the technology leaking to potential enemies or we don't have an effective counter (you don't export what you don't know how to beat or work around)?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald and Darth   4/18/2009 12:37:35 PM
We fon't you two take a "Time-Out" before teh SysOps Collective MAKES you take a time out...I don't know about Darth, but Herald you know they will can you for a while.  Can we not be nicer and a little more gentle?
 
I don't care if Darth is a Staff sergeant or a Major General...and since much of what we discuss is classified, in the REAL world, how can say if someone is lying or not?  So why doesn't everyone take a deep breath and play nicer. 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy   4/18/2009 12:45:22 PM
The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States
 
 
And hence the SecDef works for the POTUS, not you or I.  His/her boss is Barak/Dubya/Slick Willie it ain't us; because we can't fire the SecDef.  The SecDef executes the will of the POTUS, not the People.  B*tch and moan all you want about Gates' policies, write all the lettres you care to...there is NO election for SecDef and as long as the Commander-in-Chief is satisfied with the performance of the SecDef, s/he stays, irrespective of the opinion of 1 or 300 million US citizens.  You and I, heck all 300 million of us might want 350 F-22's (a total waste of money) but if the POTUS wants 187, that's what we get and the SecDef will cap production at that level. 
 
Technically, what Barak wants is a DECREASE in defense spending, of a certain amount.  OMB has a set of target programs, of course, they wish to preserve OR can...given the budget allocation and the target list, the SecDef executes the POTUS' will in meeting the target budget goal.  Please note Herald's desire to build more F-22's is not a part of that process...nor are any of our desires incorporated, so it is fair to say that the SecDef doesn't have as his/her boss, you and I.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/18/2009 5:36:11 PM
The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States

And hence the SecDef works for the POTUS, not you or I.

If you want to remove the Secretary of Defense, really badly, you can lobby your President to do so.

If your President will not remove the Secretary of Defense, and you want to remove him badly enough, you simply replace the President with a person who will do just that.

Ergo, the Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of taxpayer (that means you and me).

Do not let the time frame trip you up; just because 1 voter cannot send the White House a fax and have the Sec Def removed does not mean he does not work for us.

 The system was created this way purposefully with the VOTER being the check against cabinet level positions (both via who we elect as our State Representatives who elect our electors who elect our President and by our election of our State Congressional Representatives who go about the token approval process).


There is a reason these positions, more often than not, change dramatically with the arrival of a new administration.

 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/18/2009 6:44:18 PM
If so, could this have played a role in the decision to stop further production of the F-22?  Put another way, if there was no Obey amendment or ITARS restrictions on exporting the F-22 and countries such as Australia, Japan, or Korea requested the F-22, would the US do so?  If the requests were denied, would it be due to fear of the technology leaking to potential enemies or we don't have an effective counter (you don't export what you don't know how to beat or work around)?
In 2004 I attended an Australian Military Conf where Richard Armitage attended as senior USG representative.
He stated point blank, in front of approx 400+ people at the official dinner function, that if Australia wanted to buy the F-22, then the USG would look favourably upon it.  From that pont on every lunatic under the sun without any idea of australian tactical and strategic requirements has wanted us to have the F-22.

In the Nov 2007 Committe meetings held in Australia, RAAF point blank said that even if it was affordable, it was not suitable for our future force structure - and that  in their considered view, the JSF was a far better and more relevant solution.

Irrespective of that comment, every dickhead with a keyboard (Goon, Kopp, Jensen, Mills, Eric Palmer etc... have waxed lyrical on the subject.  The previous are Australias contribution in a parallel universe to Carlton/Sparks/Meyers/ Riccioni :)

We don't need it and we haven't asked for it.  Every political comment made in australia was in the context  of political colour and movement where political parties sought a position of opportunity - and actually took advantage of the gullibility of techno geeks and used them as part of their vehicle of political debate/  When the opposition party came into power, they were then left with the enbarassment of having to look like we hadn't asked for the F-22 and went through symbolic public commentary.  Again, they were briefed by RAAF and NACC and have now quietly but surely turned down the volume 

We know about some of the upgrade and future life issues with F-22 - we are not interested in it.  period. 

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/19/2009 8:20:33 AM
You and I, heck all 300 million of us might want 350 F-22's (a total waste of money) but if the POTUS wants 187, that's what we get and the SecDef will cap production at that level. 
 
 
You must be a lot smarter than the rest of us, I didn't realize that maintaining air dominance was "a total waste of money". Why don't we just sell the 187 off to Iran...since they are a waste of money we have nothing to fear right?
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22    JFKY Reply   4/19/2009 8:22:27 AM
You and I, heck all 300 million of us might want 350 F-22's (a total waste of money) but if the POTUS wants 187, that's what we get and the SecDef will cap production at that level. 
 
 
You must be a lot smarter than the rest of us, I didn't realize that maintaining air dominance was "a total waste of money". Why don't we just sell the 187 off to Iran...since they are a waste of money we have nothing to fear right?
 
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