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       4/25/2009 9:19:52 PM
So you think they are going to put up 1000 SU-30/J-11/J-10 and JF-17 and come after the ROC and our F-22s? Can their ATC, GCI handle that. Are there any references to training where the PRC has coordinated such large numbers? If they have 1000 fighters in the ROC vicinity, how are they going to secure their other borders and SLOC?
 

1000 was to show their future capability on a broad scale. They will have to secure their borders and SLOC just like we would, with far fewer and less capable aircraft.
 
Something happen? Such as? Anything like F-22's being grounded for corrosion problems? If this strictly an Eagle problem or does this happen to all jets?


Short term memory failing you? Structural problem that specifically grounded the entire F-15 fleet in November 2007. Airframes simply do not become stronger with age including Golden Eagles.


So a VLO fighter with 2 to 4 AAMs, AESA, and is Supersonic is limited? Can you show where 2-4 AAMs have been proven not to be enough in combat?
 
Even if I could it would be an unfair comparison. Recent engagements(last 20 years) have been with overwhelming numbers and capability. The potential adversary is not poorly trained Iraqi pilots flying Mirage F1's and Mig-23's it is Russian or Chinese SU-30's in sufficient numbers. F-35 in AG carries 2 AIM-120D and cannot outfly a Flanker, hope he doesn't miss or has big brother standing by.
 
Well I already showed you F-22's don't work for this purpose. Too many gaps to cover. Too many variables. Too few airplanes.
 
You showed me a map of nuclear reactors a lot of which are inside the coverage area to begin with. Assuming we had 243 and 120 are deployed:
1.Langley 
2.Edwards
3.McChord
4.Tyndall
5.Holloman
3 birds in the air 8hour on station with tanker support. 
Subsonic cruise missiles would have to penetrate through the Raptors area of coverage to get to the sites farther inland. Raptors can offer a kinematic advantage no other aircraft can.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/25/2009 10:04:27 PM


1000 was to show their future capability on a broad scale. They will have to secure their borders and SLOC just like we would, with far fewer and less capable aircraft.

Oh I see. So the USAF by itself will have numerically superior advantage of over 2 to 1 with most of that being VLO 5th Gen platforms 187 F-22 + 1700 F-35 and and hundreds of F-15s and F-16s as well.  

 

Short term memory failing you? Structural problem that specifically grounded the entire F-15 fleet in November 2007. Airframes simply do not become stronger with age including Golden Eagles.

Not at all. You missed my point. F-22's have been grounded too. Point being it isn't something Eagle specific. The USAF seems to think the F-15 is viable through 2025 or so. Considering how long other platforms have lasted I agree.



Even if I could it would be an unfair comparison. Recent engagements(last 20 years) have been with overwhelming numbers and capability. The potential adversary is not poorly trained Iraqi pilots flying Mirage F1's and Mig-23's it is Russian or Chinese SU-30's in sufficient numbers. F-35 in AG carries 2 AIM-120D and cannot outfly a Flanker, hope he doesn't miss or has big brother standing by.
 
Oh, yeah. Its outnumbered PRC and Russian pilots flying in Migs and Flankers that are all older and less capable than and F-35 which can outfly any Flanker. Unless you mean top speed. I don't think we have to go there do we? Where does this nonsense come from than an F-35 will be out flown by flankers? Air Combat is not about absolute maximum performance. Here is a little history on what happens to interceptors/fighters that jump aircraft with better training and situational awareness, bombs and 2 AAMs...



Mustang, this is a validated concept. An F-35 running silent on it's way to bomb something is very much likely to avoid detection all together and certainly would sniff the presence of a Flanker. The Flanker is likely to not even know he is being shot at.
 

 

You showed me a map of nuclear reactors a lot of which are inside the coverage area to begin with. Assuming we had 243 and 120 are deployed:

1.Langley 

2.Edwards

3.McChord

4.Tyndall

5.Holloman

3 birds in the air 8hour on station with tanker support. 

Subsonic cruise missiles would have to penetrate through the Raptors area of coverage to get to the sites farther inland. Raptors can offer a kinematic advantage no other aircraft can.



There is nothing subsonic about 300 seconds to go 300km. I just showed you the kinds of missiles that we need to be ready for and Raptor can't catch it. Moreover there is nothing easy about shooting down a subsonic cruise missile. You have to detect them first and that's not easy. If they come in swarms as they no doubt would, all it takes it one with WMD to leak.Or even HE depending on the target. There are not enough fighters in the US Military to stop CMs from getting through. It's not an issue of platforms. Its ISR and detection we have to worry about. A CM can be a Cessna with GPS guidance and an Antrax dispenser.

Here are your target sets...

link width="425" height="344">  

 
link width="425" height="344">
 
link width="425" height="344">


Do a PK analysis on this last one. 7 CMs! You cannot win against numbers like that with todays tactics. And there are stealthy CMs...

link width="425" height="344">  
 



Mustang, If you really want to stop this stuff. That 13 billion you would have to spend on the additional Raptors would go much further if used to upgrade our ISR and security capabilities. Going after them defensively with Raptors is not the best way.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/25/2009 10:25:24 PM

A conventional attack by a foreign nation against US nuclear plants is easily rejected.  It's a WMD attack that would demand retaliation in kind and be quite limited in effect even with BrahMos.  No power would consider this as an option whether delivered by air or sea. 

In practically any nuclear exchange scenario, F-22 and its non-hardened (we don't have much there) shelters would simply be rocket targets.  No power is going to attack the US unless and until it is confident that it has ballistic missiles in quality and quantity that will destroy our counterforce.  F-22 doesn't help us much here in CONUS-land. 0.02

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Mustang Reply...   4/25/2009 11:31:06 PM

Sorry link did not work.
website islink


Mustang,

I had a chance to review the document you posted and I wanted to offer you my critique. BTW, thanks for the civil disagreement. Here goes...

CONCLUSION

A strong conventional deterrent with airpower remains essential to international security. As Secretary Gates said ?let?s not forget the deterrent value?of our conventional military forces.? 11

Yet this is exactly the risk the nation is taking with conventional deterrence. Unless the F-22 is bought in sufficient numbers,

link width="320" height="265">  

 the risks to all joint forces go up and up in the years ahead. Right now the US has the ability to stay ahead in the conventional deterrence game by upgrading its airpower with the unique capabilities of the F-22. When production ceases, the door will close. It would take many years and billions of dollars to begin a new program to surpass the F-22. Long before then, the US could see its policy options cramped by the limits of its own military power. 

?I believe we are going to need a nuclear deterrent in this country for the remainder of this century, the 21st century,? General Kevin P. Chilton, Commander, United States Strategic Command. ?So long as there are other countries in the world that possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States of America and our way of life ... we will have to deter those types of countries.? 12

That?s just as true for conventional deterrence. No one wants America locked out of surveying a developing crisis or forced to escalate when a strong, conventional airstrike option would have done the job. 

To fail to provide air dominance would allow other nations to deter US forces and international coalitions. Within a half decade, by some counts, other nations will build up enough lock-out capability to foreclose all but very costly action. The door is already swinging shut for ISR and other types of early crisis response.  


 


SecDef Gates settles the issue of if he and the USAF thinks its enough. The picture above shows that like I was explaining before, there are programs out there to deal with these new threats and many of them are not public knowledge. Stuff is quite literally just going to roll out like Bird of Prey and this Avenger did. We aren't going to let ourselves be locked out. We also aren't going to make everything public knowledge either. And do not discount the stealth capabilities of legacy platforms. Think about Sutter.

That article you linked says that the Russian ORBAT in Georgia 2008 looked like this...

Russia?s actions in Georgia in August 2008 lasted briefly but they were enough to create a prototype lock-out scenario. 

The Russian Northern Caucasus military district had nearly 300 fighter aircraft: 105 MiG-29s, 30 Su-24s, 59 Su-27s, and 100 Su-25s. Add in the now-common SA-20 with its fire-control range of 75 miles and it would have been possible to layer enough air defenses to make reconnaissance nearly impossible 

OK first, that's 164 a2a fighters. Not quite the Soviet Air Force if you know what I mean. The USAF already had over 100 Raptors in the inventory by then. Thats not even counting F-15C's. We could have matched the Russians 1 to 1 if we chose in fighters.8 You know what those USAF units were doing at the time? Nothing. We had the air power to smack the Russians silly. We still do now and will through 2025 by current trends. With SA-20, the amount of SEAD capable assets we could have brought to bear is something the Russians would not have been able to handle. It takes more than a PDF with a bunch of nice F-22 photos to make a coherent case in support of more. It says the right things, but it's doesn't acknowledge that the USAF is content with what it has. 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Incompetent.   4/26/2009 3:18:44 PM




Brahmos has a range limit of 550 kilometers. What is the launch platform? A sub. Version does not exist.  A freighter/






This is a Brahmos:













Both of these versions are in development. 2009-2012 but you know how it is with development programs so lets say by 2015 the Brahmos specifically could be a valid threat. Note that it is built to order for the customer.   Also, we have a land border with Mexico. Mexico isn't exactly the most secure place....




link target="_blank">link width="425" height="344">


 




 

There would not even be time to take off and intercept this missile if it came from the Southern Border. The entire premise of manned fighters remaining an effective deterrent to Cruise Missile attack on CONUS is no longer valid no matter what fighter we have. 



 



This is what I mean by incompetent presentation. You need to really think these things through poster.






The submarine version does NOT exist yet., It hasn't even passed weapon proof from a dummy silo.
 
When I say incompetent; I mean incompetent.  At least the poster can get facts straight and  try not to ramp up issues and  points that don't even exist.
 
As for the air launched version, what Indian Air Force plane has the range?  When the poster trots this nonsense out, he is so far off reality, that I have to reign myself in to not laugh aloud.
 
As I noted earlier, we would probably have to absorb conventional cruise missile attacks, because they are difficult to stop; but no the poster had to go and set up a ------- strawman and prretend  I created that issue he could tru to argue and fail a point not even relevant to the coverage questiuon I rsised when i pointed out he didn't know what he doiscussed abouhyt the legacy fighter force. (Curious he ran away from that little FACT like a scalded rabbit when I showed that he was not correct or even knowledgable on point!)
 
Shrug., is it any wonder that I do not consider him technically qualified?
 
Its apparent that the poster would like to mount a side iussue and try to make that the main argument when the main argument the poster lost a long tome ago. The poster claims that I find nothing he writes has merit?
 
Now whyt would that be? 
 
1. Don't know what Brahmos actually is in service/
2. Doesn't know how Brahmos works?
3. Doesn't know Brahmos severe limitations?
4. Doesn't know what you need to launch Brahmos?
 
How's that do for starters?
 
Missile has a flight time of 400 seconds. or about 5.7 minutes as stated; actual is closer to 500 seconds. Provided a high altitude CAP was in place at launch and you have a heat lock you have eight moinutes to stop the Brahmos.

More than enough time.
 
Do the vectors if you can, poster. That glowing thing is also ROCKET hot.against a cold sea or landscape.
 
Sheesh, this nonsense is so simple to torpedo that I wonder why I bother.
 
Herald
 
 

 

 


 
 
 
 
 

.




-DA






 





 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/26/2009 3:33:55 PM
Herald, you arent in a position to call me incompetent when you obviously misinterpreted what I demonstrated. But it's ok, not need for me to beat a dead horse when everyone here can see you are incorrect.

I clearly said, you have to already be in position to intercept a missile like Brahmos. FACT.

I clearly said, MISSILE "LIKE" BRAHMOS. Fact. 

I Clearly said and posted evidence that Brahmos in Submarine and air launched versions were in development and were on the immediate future horizon of about 2009-2012. FACT.

I showed an illustration that there are still holes with many more F-22's than you suggested. FACT.

I Showed that the missile can be launched from the ground on a TEL. Its also known such missiles can be made to fire off civilian ships. FACT.

 
So what was the purpose of your post? Just to again call me incompetent? OK. We'll see...lol. Herald, when you use a work without respect to meaning and relevance it loses value. Your use of the word incompetent, is incompetent. By definition. Lose the personality disorder.

-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    HERALD STOP FLAMING ME   4/26/2009 4:36:41 PM

I have fifty pages worth of evidence and growing that proves you don't know what you discuss, poster. The poster actually reveals how much he doesn't  know. For example he apparently cannot do a vector sum analysis. I thought he said he was somehow involved in civil engineering?

Goes directly to analytical competency

Herald


 
Herald, so far, you are the one who hasn't provided anything other than a bad attitude and an unfounded suggestion that 50 F-22s would allow for coverage of the USA against air attack.  Look, I know you don't like me, I know you think I'm "incompetent" and all the other things you say. I'll give you that. I freely accept thats your opinion of me. So now that I've allowed for that, what do you have in the way of support? In fact, let me tell you what. Post your proposed 50 Raptor coverage over CONUS. Let me see why you think it's enough. Show me the schedule and flight hours accumilated over the course of a year. Tone down your rhetoric and discuss this like a person with some sense. 
If you have a point, make it. But please stop flaming me just because my opinions are different than yours. I'm not on the site for this. 

-DA
 

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/26/2009 10:43:09 PM

Personally, I will be grateful to receive education here as to the manned penetrator threats CONUS faces from any power.  Today then out into the next two decades.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2009 1:36:25 PM

Personally, I will be grateful to receive education here as to the manned penetrator threats CONUS faces from any power.  Today then out into the next two decades.


v^2


Well that depends. This is the 21st century so a manned penetrator can be a civilian aircraft attacking by stealth and can be controlled by non-state actors like Cartels or AQ. Or it can be a BlackJack or any other strategic bomber or tactical aircraft based close enough to CONUS. Out through the next two decades the civilian aircraft threat will remain. The Mil aircraft threat will evolve as Countries like Russia and China produce and export stealthy high performance aircraft like PAK-FA if that even gets finished. However, there will be the additional threat of aircraft like SKAT and other foreign UAV technologies. All of this will get very difficult to defend against with the current state of the art including F-22's unless we develop a land based CEC capability and combine it with persistent lethal capability.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    To correect further nonsense.   4/27/2009 1:56:02 PM
1. The only BrahMos like missile is the BrahMos or the Yakhont. The only other threats are the YJ-12 and the ASMP. Neither of those is a long range Mach 3 sea-skimmer.
2. Nitpicking, desperate attempts to change the subject and running away from the argument, as fast as the poster can, when he caught in another error is noted. 
3. False accusation of flaming is noted. The poster's errors when he refuses to admit them are FAIR GAME. When the poster doesn't know what he discusses; it is only proper to so indicate.
4. When the poster has nothing to say on point, doesn't know the subject and tries to nitpick a very minor point and then gets THAT wrong too, then the poster's credibility becomes fair game.  

V^2
 
Main threat axis are Caribbean and Mexico for hijacked airliners. Enemy nation state cruise missile carrying aircraft (Blackjack, Bear, or Backfire carrying GRANAT or KENT  cruise missiles are along the Eastern and Werstern sea frontiers to flank the air defense. Main internal air threats are small private planes from either commuter airfields or private airstrips. 
 
All of that is fairly obvious, hence the Jamaica example earlier.
 
Herald
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2009 2:12:15 PM




Personally, I will be grateful to receive education here as to the manned penetrator threats CONUS faces from any power.  Today then out into the next two decades.




v^2





Well that depends. This is the 21st century so a manned penetrator can be a civilian aircraft attacking by stealth and can be controlled by non-state actors like Cartels or AQ. Or it can be a BlackJack or any other strategic bomber or tactical aircraft based close enough to CONUS. Out through the next two decades the civilian aircraft threat will remain. The Mil aircraft threat will evolve as Countries like Russia and China produce and export stealthy high performance aircraft like PAK-FA if that even gets finished. However, there will be the additional threat of aircraft like SKAT and other foreign UAV technologies. All of this will get very difficult to defend against with the current state of the art including F-22's unless we develop a land based CEC capability and combine it with persistent lethal capability.




-DA 



V^2,

I apologize that we can't discuss this without people interjecting their personal feelings into this. Feel free to discuss anything you like. I promise not to let any personal emotions into my responses. Anyway, I hope what I told you adequately put into perspective the MANNED penetrator threat you asked about. I'll be discussing this more later...

Regards
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    I'm getting bored with this thread...   4/27/2009 2:13:30 PM
This thread is quickly becoming nonsense, so here is my first attempt at completely killing it using Godwins law:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law"
 
Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi Nazi.
 
Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler.

Oh wait seems I'm supposed I have to compare something to Nazi's and Hitler, grumble....
 
If Hitler were alive today he would love the idea of the US having less F22 Raptors, Hitler would also love the nazi gestapo way of tax collecting needed to pay for these extra F22's.
 
There, now I've ruined it for everybody.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/27/2009 5:39:10 PM
Just to clarify some things on Brahmos - because it's earning some mythology that is undeserved.

It 's a legacy program from the P800 and Yakhont.  It was a derated system to ensure that the russians didn't breach MTCR obligations.  So it was minus GLONAS guidance and had a derated range to stay within limits.

As such it complies with 300nm MTCR mandated export range
As such it is only able to be driven within a regional navigation guidance system.

The irony of all this is that despite the volumes of spin that the Indian Media and some withinin the DRDO (Indias equiv of DARPA) - it's not even remotely in a positon to be a blue water theatre weapon.

The second irony is that the russians are now offering GLONAS for it.  So India got suckered into buying a detuned P800 and will ironically end up paying for the real thing some 10 years later.

If I was the Indian Govt, I'd be right royally pi$$ed off at the lack of good faith shown etc...  hence why (surprise surprise) India is looking more and more at western systems.  They've been screwed over a number of times.

It's not sub ready, and it's not sukhoi ready - irrespective of the pictures lauding the ability. (have a look at their updated SA2 and SA6 based indigenous systems for a clue as to why its optimistic)
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2009 5:54:52 PM

Just to clarify some things on Brahmos - because it's earning some mythology that is undeserved.


Brahmos was mentioned to illustrate a trend in cruise missile capability. Specifically high supersonic speeds and short flight times. It was not to say the Brahmos itself  is Su-27 or SSK/SSN capable yet although the intent is clearly there. I mentioned Brahmos as an example only. SOme chose to run with it and spun it into me saying that the Brahmos itself is the threat when in fact I was quite clear it merely represented a "type" of CM threat that no realistic amount of F-22 coverage and especially not 50 is capable of dealing with should a "missile with performance LIKE BRAHMOS" actually showed up.  

Not only that, but older supersonic cruise missiles of the Soviet era still exist and pose a proliferation risk. Several nations that most would consider possible threats have the capability to modify such missiles for their purpose. There is plenty of discussion of this in the missile defense community. But it doesn't matter. Your standard subsonic primitive generic Silkworm type missile properly employed would pose enough of a threat as is. A lesson we learned in a much smaller battlespace under much tighter scrutiny and with more liberal ROE more than once.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2009 6:01:52 PM

link width="320" height="265">  
 
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