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

Phaid       4/20/2009 11:59:24 AM
Ford class carrier will cost DOD 14 billion to develop and build. Are you telling me that your so called low intensity threats could not be dealt with by current Nimitz class carriers with incremental upgrades? Eliminating the 3 billion in R&D from the 2009 defense appropriation bill would be a start. Or is Gerald Ford technology required to hunt down pirates off the coast of Somalia?
 
Exactly.  The argument that 60 F-22s is "not affordable" in the face of that kind of much larger, and vastly more optional, spending is just political hot air.  If you want a shining example of "running up the score in capability overmatch" then there's no finer example.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/20/2009 12:44:06 PM
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

pay attention to the rest of us who actually know what we are doing.
 
Ah but \you don't and when you started this topic you oinnediatelkyh proved that you never did.
 
What is the apparent size of the bird?
What kind of jet engine would it use.
What can you deduce about endurance in the air from the engine and the expected fuel fraction?
What shows that it is not an autonomous bird?
What shows that it is not a stealthy bird?
What shows that it is not a maneuvering bird?
What shows that it is never intended to be a weapon carrier?
 
 Didn't answer the original question because you COULDN'T, poster.

To restate: What is this bird's mission?


To be specific: I want you to answer a simple question so as to prove your technical credentials to have credibility on TOPIC or for that matter ANY toopic, poster..
 
You should be ablke to answer if you have the slightest clue as to aircraft at all. Much like many posters who waste bandwidth pontificating on stuff they know nothing about, I want you yto prove once and for all tthat you have something worth reading on topic. 
 
You still have not admitted that you wrote garbage when you claimed that you didn'yt say what you said, but that is side issue which I will deal with as soon as we deal with this issue about your qualkifications to have an informed opinion.
 
Do you have the abiluty to even try to answer the questions?
 
Come on, its simple, poster, or are you afraid of the problem? 
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Phaid   4/20/2009 1:41:47 PM
Isn't a comparison between buy costs and R&D costs "Apples and Oranges?" The money for the Ford is R&D money, for a replacement system...you want to cut the FUTURE of the US Navy, to pay for a little more of the Air Force TODAY...
 
IS that really wise?  If you "zero out" the money you've killed the program...not politically possible, and economically unwise as well...
 
Your goal is damage to the US Navy, so that the USAF can have another 60 toys?
 
And what is it with your love of the F-16? Alternatively, let's zero out the F-22 and just build more F-15's...how about that.  Because you seem perfectly willing to go with a 30-plus y.o. air frame in the F-16, why not just save even more money and not build any more F-22's and just build more F-15's?  We can kill BOTH the F-22 AND the F-35...is that OK?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 1:53:58 PM
Herald,

I already told you liar. You just sit back and listen since you aren't interested in a debate. I have no interest in deflating your ego yet again. When you stop posting lies, when you lose the personal venomous nature of your post towards me, I'll talk with you. Otherwise, you are not in the same class of debate as me and you don't have anywhere near the knowledge of military topics or engineering to play pretend. It takes more than completing sophomore year EE and a bad attitude to be competent. If that assessment of you is wrong demonstrate so by posting within the guidelines and treating me with the same respect you would like for yourself. You don't see others here insulting you when you have demonstrated misunderstanding on all of the following...

Differences between UCAV/UAV

Ability to objectively forecast threats in relation to requirements***

Multirole fighters

Add this to things like...

Thinking CIVIL Merchants should be armed with guided missiles

Ignorance of Operational characteristics of MG

Thinking the Border Patrol is capable of facing military style threats

Complete and utter misinterpretation of the USS Bainbridge/Pirate scenario

Lack of any kind of objective respect for subject matter experts

Thinking Merchant Convoys can work against pirates today  

Not understanding touchscreens or battlemanagement

Not understanding the logistics of OIF and pretending like you did with regard to Basra



Herald, you are still in a learning capacity on these matters. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of these and other issues. The one thing that you do contribute is the physics and some electronic principles and techniques. I salute you for that. The problem is you have a huge ego and you think that theory, which is the extent of your experience, is sacrosanct and you have no concept of the realities. 

So right now, I'm not interested in discussing F-22 or UCAV with you until you humble yourself enough to accept that you do not know as much as you think you do and you listen to people who do. I'll let you keep on studying the "Artist Concept" drawing...lol. Get back to me when you can have a civil conversation.


-DA  

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 2:01:23 PM

Isn't a comparison between buy costs and R&D costs "Apples and Oranges?" The money for the Ford is R&D money, for a replacement system...you want to cut the FUTURE of the US Navy, to pay for a little more of the Air Force TODAY...

 

IS that really wise?  If you "zero out" the money you've killed the program...not politically possible, and economically unwise as well...

 

Your goal is damage to the US Navy, so that the USAF can have another 60 toys?

 

And what is it with your love of the F-16? Alternatively, let's zero out the F-22 and just build more F-15's...how about that.  Because you seem perfectly willing to go with a 30-plus y.o. air frame in the F-16, why not just save even more money and not build any more F-22's and just build more F-15's?  We can kill BOTH the F-22 AND the F-35...is that OK?

His logic does not stand scrutiny. It completely ignores the fact that the DoD is publicly stating as fact that funding additional F-22's means less funding for something else and all things considered the other things are things we MUST DO. The F-22 is not a make or break system and the numbers we have will smash dead any opponent. The current thinking is to use the F-22 as a silver bullet force. Thats why they aren't deployed over CENTCOM AOR because there are no operations that require their capabilities. If there was, the F-22 would be deployed as needed and then withdrawn after their mission was accomplished. I understand liking the F-22. I don't understand this unfounded position that without it doom and gloom will rain down on the DoD. We aren't dependent on a single weapon system like that.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/20/2009 2:02:37 PM
 ---JFKY--- Except Evilfishy Rumsfeld got fired AFTER the elections. His retirement sparked anger in that Republicans wanted him gone in '05-'06, not after their defeat...---

You think that fact HURTS my position? Rumsfeld left office (technically, he resigned, by we all know he was forced out) AFTER his immediate BOSS, Bush, was re-elected.

Why the hell would a President replace a Cabinet Secretary AFTER he won an election when he knew he would face NO NEW ELECTONS in the future and while his party gained control of both houses ?

Oh yeah; Congressional and public outcry made replacing Rumsfeld something of a political reality for Bush.

---JFKY--- plus, it can be argued, Rumsfeld got sideways with his BOSS and vice versa, over the Surge, not got cross-ways with the public.---

Yeah because damn near every Congressman, news anchor, public poll, and any retired officer wearing a star on their collar (remember when, what was it, seven, eight retired Generals and high ranking officers called for his resignation?) for over a year (if not longer) had no affect on Bush right?

Rumsfeld was forced out because public outcry was focused on him and Bush knew it. Congressmen and citizens alike (at least a loud group) wanted him gone and they got what they wanted.

Not only did they get what they wanted but they got it from a President who was JUST RE-ELECTED and who had both houses of Congress in Republican hands for the FIRST TME since 2001.

The reason is simple: the Secretary of X works for the President who works for the American People. Ergo, the American people are the BOSS of the President, te Secretary of X, and all other Government critters.

When those people want to replace the President, Secretary X, or any other Government Critter, they CAN and invariably they DO via any number of constitutionally existing means at their disposal.

Savvy?

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Look poster.   4/20/2009 2:07:55 PM
Buzz words aren't going to save you. I asked you a few simple questions that a high school student can ansdwe.
 
 This is a test of your ability; not of mine..
 
You can twist and weave what you want and you THINK you can call me a liar. The question I have for you, poster is who is qualified in subject? 
 
This is not about your ego or your belief that I can be called a liar, (a charge incidentally which has no grounds of proof and which is a libel).
 
In summary, all the fantasies you conjure up are not going to save you, poster. Its a simple test you need to pass. Are you afraid of it?
 
If I were you, then  I sure would be. But then I'm not you.
 
Come on, just try.
 
Herald


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy   4/20/2009 2:17:57 PM
IF it was about Bush's re-eelction, it wouldn't have mattered...Bush was NOT eligible for a thrid term...and it wasn't the '04 Election that was critical, it was the '06 MID-Terms, that were critical...the Republicans wanted him gone in '05, not AFTER they lost...obviously the desires of the Republicans didn't fly in the White House.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth and Herald   4/20/2009 2:19:38 PM
Gently, gently...this isn't about who's lying or who's not is it...or even ego...but it could get you all a time out...why ruin the thread by making it so personally nasty?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 2:23:07 PM

Buzz words aren't going to save you. I asked you a few simple questions that a high school student can ansdwe.

 This is a test of your ability; not of mine..
 

Stop right here. You don't "test" my ability. I don't give a care what you think of my ability. This isn't a peer review or ego contest for me. Get that through your thick skull that I do not care in the least about your opinion of me. The only thing being tested is the bandwidth capacity here as this thread has tens of thousands of views. Hundreds of replies. Many of which are off topic because of you. Now, what do you have to say about the F-22 or topic under discussion? If you agree fine. If not fine. But stop insulting people who do not agree with you. If you want to test something, test your own ability to stay on topic and not personal. Test your ability to create thread topics of interest to others. No one wants to read you bashing people, flaming, lying and beating your chest about "Herald Traps" and what ever stupid "list" you have for the week. Go ego trip somewhere else. If you have got something to say, pro or con on the topic, I'm all ears. If you want to keep making this between me and you, email me. You have my email, I'll straighten you out there. Stop subjecting the others to this needless digression. Now, I know your ego mandates you get the last word so go right ahead, I'll concede that to you. Have at it. Take carte blanche to say whatever you like to or about me. I DONT CARE. Unless it has to do specifically with the topic and is presented in a nonconfrontational way, no further communication from me to you.

Have a Nice Day
-DA 


 
 
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