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       4/19/2009 5:32:01 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 



Subsonic its supposed to be, but wrong wing camber, wrong intake design, the sat-dish, as is usual, is under the forward hump and the lookdown sensors are presumably under the chin strake. No room for A2A radar in nose. No indication of SAR strips or SAR canoe. Wings too far forward for CG or CM. That artist's concept aircraft is a JOKE 
 
Irrelevant? Hardly. I just demolished in fifty words what you don't begin to understand at all, poster.
 
I see the ego defense continues. But go right ahead, tell me your expert description of this so called UCAV's function, poster. What kind of mission is it supposed to perform again?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    You aren't worth it. Just pay attention to the rest of us who actually know what we are doing.   4/19/2009 6:09:39 PM
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/19/2009 6:30:55 PM

--- JFKY---    Your first post  from which I quoted says it all..."The Secretary serves at the discretion of the President"

Once you said that you lost...because you just admitted...the SecDef DOESN'T work for us...neither you nor I can fire him/her.---

 

Who has the power to fire the President of the United States?

Who does the President of the United States work for?

You can sit there and say that the the person who works for the boss over whom I am the boss is not at my service all you please.

I can sit here and tell you gravity does not exist but that does not seem to impact the apple falling from the tree.

Once more, if a group of Americans really, and I mean truly want to replace the Secretary of Defence, or any other Secretary for that matter, they can do so.   Just because it takes a bit more work than sending off a fax does not change the matter one bit.

 

This government, which is run by the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) exists at my (the people) discretion.

Period.

End of story.

No win.

No lose.

Just fact.

Deal with it how you may.

 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    EvilFishy   4/19/2009 7:05:44 PM
Ok, even though you admit you're wrong..in your own opening statement...feel free to warm your self with the belief that Gates/Rumsfeld/Cohen work for YOU...when, in fact, as YOU admit, they work for the POTUS.
 
Heck when you change POTUS' does the SecDef change...Who was Dubya's last SecDef...Why Gates wasn't it and who is Obama's frist SecDef...why the same aforementioned Gates...so WHO chooses Sec Def's?  Oh that's right, the PRESIDENT.
 
You chose Congress, 2/535th of (1/however many votes were cast in each race you are eligible to vote) in X 100%, plus a percentage of the POTUS vote....you're stockholder...you don't choose the stock boys or the accounting department or even the senior management of the firm...you choose the Chairman of the Board, who may change the manament team/work force, or s/he many not.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/19/2009 7:30:25 PM

So General Atomics has showed us a "flash of leg" from an in-house project.  Here are a few tasks Avenger should be able to perform in a high-threat environment that a F-22/F-16 combination cannot accomplish as well:

- operate off an aircraft carrier

- persistent BDA and battery fire support for Marines and MLRS

- persistent ELINT and surveillance near coastal areas

- persistent mobile missile hunting if armed with SDB

- persistent land interdiction if armed with Hellfire

- cheap off axis MALD deployment in support of raids

- search and rescue relay and support for downed Navy crews

- P3/8 multiplier

Avenger clearly is an interim platform.  But given its a/c carrier abilities, price point, reduced signature design,400+kt speed, endurance and bays I hope that we buy several tens of them once fieldable.  The end user will keep however many we acquire constantly working.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Mustang22   4/19/2009 8:00:42 PM
The B-52????  you want the fighter community to have the most advanced a/c for a2a, but are going to relegate a2g to a forty y.o airframe?  I see, only the best will do for a2a, but any OLD airframe will do in the realm of a2g....
 
The B-52...all 76 airframes?  So let's see, we need 250-400 HUNDRED F-22's, but we can achieve national ends with 76 airframes?  Desert Storm generated 1,000-plus tactical sorties per day...we are going to need a lot more sorties per day for a scenario that involves Korea, Taiwan, or Iran than we are going to get from the B-52's?
 
The B-52?? So even though the B-52 was vulnerable to the air defenses of North Vietnam in 1972, suffering heavy losses, the B-52 won't be vulnerable to the heavier, more capable defenses of the PRC or DPRK?  Even after the plaintive cries, of some on this board, about motherless children and dead pilots, of F-15's brought down by sophisticated SS-Teens over the Taiwan Strait, the B-52 will achieve our national ends?
 
The SEAD mission is more than jamming...as the Israeli so famously said, "The best counter-measure is a 500 pound bomb on the radar van."  The F-22 and the EF-18G aren't going to be the bomb platforms to defeat an air defense system.
 
Your posting shows the problems with the increase in F-22 production...it comes at a cost, to a balanced air force and a balanced military.  You would have hundreds of F-22's but the a2g campaign, the CRITICAL portion of achieving national ends, they have to "make do."  Ask yourself this, who dominated the skies over Vietnam?  Who won those campaign?  Who dominated the skies over the battlefields of Korea?  How many US/ROK/UN servicemen died, in spite of that absolute aerial control?  A2A is only part of the picture, even for an air force....
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/19/2009 8:24:11 PM
As the saying goes, "Fighter Pilots make Headlines, bomber pilots make HISTORY."  In a choice between air parity and air SUPERIORITY I'll choose air parity, as in Tunisia 1942/43 as long as the ground forces are making progress.
 
The problem with that statement is that the difference in lives on the ground between air superiority and air parity is much greater today than it was in 1942/43. For several reasons:
 
One, our ground forces today depend vastly more on air assets as force multipliers than they did back then.  Intel of all sorts from UAVs, JSTARS, Guardrail, Project Liberty, P-8/P-3s, to say nothing of course of all the A-10s/F-16s/F-15Es / various helos.  And the intel assets are always high demand / low density -- losing one F-16, as bad as that is, won't necessarily derail your operations, but lose a couple of ISR systems, or threaten their airspace so they can't provide continuous coverage, and you have a problem.
 
Two, we aren't the only ones with the above assets or their equivalents.  Sure, ours are more developed at this point, but we won't always be in the position of being the only kids on the block with those types of assets.  Being able to cut through the fog of war is even better if the other guy can't.  So you need to not only ensure you have use of the air, you need to deny it entirely to the other guy.
 
Three, the lethality of close air support is vastly greater now than it was in WWII.  The amount of casualties you can take from just one strike getting through to your ground forces is huge compared to what a flight of Stukas or the like could do back then.  A few Su-34s or Su-30s with ISAR/GMTI and some PGMs can give a company of M-1s a real bad day.
 
Bottom line, our warfighting strategy today relies on total control of the air, to the point where we can orbit 400mph drones and turboprops at will over our forces.  Remember that in WWII the troops with the highest casualty rates were bomber crews.  The idea that we would expect our air assets today to operate under that level of threat simply isn't feasible.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/19/2009 8:32:12 PM

I am just pointing out what should be constitutionally obvious.

 

The President serves at the descretion of the PEOPLE.

 

His subordenents serve at his descretion.

 

When the people want to replace his subordinates, they can lobby their President to remove him, or they can remove the President and elect a man who will remove the secretary for the people.

 

The Secretary of the Defense serves his President and, ultimately, his boss, the people.   You can deny this all you like.

 

Do you think no secretary who had the favor of their immediate boss, the President, has resigned or been canned due to a public outcry?

 

If you wish to continue making naïve assertions, be my guest.  It really is not conern of mine. 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    EvilFishy   4/19/2009 8:38:18 PM
Do you think no secretary who had the favor of their immediate boss, the President, has resigned or been canned due to a public outcry?
 
Would you care to name one?
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/19/2009 8:51:26 PM
Rumsfeld rings a bell
 
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