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

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 2:27:07 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?

I'm trying, JFKY. I make peace offers in almost every post. I can only offer though. It has to be accepted by the other party. My interest is the topic only. I can discuss it intelligently and I believe I can make my case logically without insulting ANYBODY to include the SecDef, POTUS or other posters and without getting personal. That's why I'm ignoring anything from Herald that falls outside the scope of the discussion hence forth. We have another record preaking thread in terms of numbers which means a lot of people are interested and I don't want to waste their time or mine arguing over personal nonsense.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/20/2009 2:49:14 PM

ALL government bureaucrats serve at the discretion of the PEOPLE (ME) and, as per the Constitution, can be removed by the PEOPLE (ME) via numerous constitutionally provided mechanisms.

This applies to the Secretaries of Executive Cabinet positions including the Secretary of Defense.

You can question this all you like but that does not change reality.

You HAVE NOT disproved this.

You HAVE NOT invalidated this.

You HAVE NOT presented any data, evidence, or sources (try the Constitution) to demonstrate that what I said is wrong.

The truth of the matter is you have not because you cannot. I know this because I know the Constitution and I know that the Sec Def, who serves the President, is also responsible to the PEOPLE and can be removed should the PUBLIC deem it so (in many ways).

All you have done, so far, is assertion based upon opinion (which happens to be WRONG).

I mentioned Rumsfeld as one example; he was forced out of office when doing so profited the Republicans and Bush NOTHING.

First you say the Sec. Def. does not work for the people and then you come about and tell me Rumsfeld was forced out AFTER BUSH was re-elected and AFTER Democrats took control of Congress; BOTH HOUSES; when removing Rumsfeld, if you are accurate, would not matter worth a damn.

The truth is simple: Presidents work for the PEOPLE and when the PEOPLE truly want one of his employees, such as the Sec DEF to GO, either they will GO or the President will GO and then the employee will GO; one way or another.

Savvy boyo?

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    It isn't about the F22   4/20/2009 3:08:35 PM
The wierd thing is that the discussion isn't abouth the F22, it is actually about the procurement process.
 
The CSIS report, that obviously nobody reads *1) clearly states that to fix the procurement process and keep enough equipment and men available, the Obama administration needs to make very unpopular choices. Like limiting the number of F22's.
 
If the unpopular measures are not taken, the US will be forced to fix this later, which will be even more difficult. Which will likely come at a time when US interests are under even more pressure. If Gates manages to fix procurement now *2) the US army will be much better off in the long run.

If not, prepare for the next fighter plane to cast 1 billion and the US buying even less numbers of them. You already see this with bomber planes. The Pentagon isn't able to procure an affordable bomber plane. The B2 bomber is bought in ridiculously low numbers.
 
PS
The CSIS study recommend the US bases it's procurement on realistic strategic scenarios. Which is what Darth is constantly talking about.
 
*1) Who gives a damn about the opinion of the pro's?
      "" target="_blank">link

*2) Given the opposition he has this is by no means a guarantee. 
 
PPS Darth and Herald bicker more than a long unhappily married couple. Makes one wonder.
 
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The test is there to see if you have the right to call anyone a liar.   4/20/2009 3:14:03 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 







 

much less be taken seriously in any discussion, henceforth. I wonder if you lack the expertise and are trying to bluff your way through this simple test; like you've done repeatedly, poster. Come on. Its not that hard. Certainly easier than the pack of fantasies you concocted to this point.
 
Apply a little of that high school education you received and answer the questions posed. It won't hurt that much after I'm done with your analysis.
 
At least try. Just try. Have you the expertise or are you bluffing again and trying to evade what you claimed yet again?

After all you from the safety of your internet hide tried and failed to call me a liar. Here's your chance to PROVE that you might have a clue and that you ,ight be able to build a case. it go0es forectly to the point of your claim that the UAS technology was able to replace the F-22 in mission role in five years which is what you said .
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 3:20:34 PM

The wierd thing is that the discussion isn't abouth the F22, it is actually about the procurement process.

 

The CSIS report, that obviously nobody reads *1) clearly states that to fix the procurement process and keep enough equipment and men available, the Obama administration needs to make very unpopular choices. Like limiting the number of F22's.


 

If the unpopular measures are not taken, the US will be forced to fix this later, which will be even more difficult. Which will likely come at a time when US interests are under even more pressure. If Gates manages to fix procurement now *2) the US army will be much better off in the long run.





If not, prepare for the next fighter plane to cast 1 billion and the US buying even less numbers of them. You already see this with bomber planes. The Pentagon isn't able to procure an affordable bomber plane. The B2 bomber is bought in ridiculously low numbers.


 
PS

The CSIS study recommend the US bases it's procurement on realistic strategic scenarios. Which is what Darth is constantly talking about.


 


*1) Who gives a damn about the opinion of the pro's?

      "
" target="_blank">link...




*2) Given the opposition he has this is by no means a guarantee. 

 

PPS Darth and Herald bicker more than a long unhappily married couple. Makes one wonder.
 
 
LMAO...FUNNY...;)



OK but serious now. I do see this as a huge and much larger issue than F-22. And I do think that now is a good time to fix the procurement process issue. We have the kind of dominance that we can use it as a buffer to fix the process since the time it would take to fix that process falls within that dominance window. If we don't, then we are going to end up with the most high tech force completely unsuited to the threat environment procured in too low of numbers to be effective. 

For so long the DoD has had the mentality of limitless budgets. It's unbelievable the amount of waste in our DoD. We need to get in and stay in the mindset that resources are finite and very careful attention should be paid to what kind of threats we need to prepare for. Contractors also need to be held to standard as well. Here is our commitment, make it work within THAT FRAMEWORK. No cost surprises. Either you can or you cant deliver on cost, on time with exactly what we asked for. The Program Management on a lot of these programs is simply appalling. 

-DA 

 

 

 




 



 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 3:26:45 PM
Your goal is damage to the US Navy, so that the USAF can have another 60 toys?
 
Where did I say that?  My point is that the Ford class is vastly more expensive than the current-build Nimitz and it is not at all clear that the Ford class improvements are needed.  Yes, the Fords will be superior in some ways.  Does that superiority justify its massive cost?  It isn't as though the Navy would be unable to carry out its missions if we kept building more ships like the G.W. Bush instead of the new design.
 
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?
 
No, it isn't OK, but I don't think you're really making any effort to understand my point.  Here it is again:
 
We need large numbers of new, up to date tactical fighters.  Block 60 F-16s, a far cry from the "30-plus y.o. air frame" of the F-16, are perfectly suited to most of our current tactical aviation needs.  They have the range, the systems, the payload, and are among the most available and maintainable airframes anywhere.  And they are in production and cheap.

We also need a new air superiority fleet that can ensure our air dominance, and we need a sizeable number of stealthy strike platforms.  The F-22 meets both of those requirements today.  The F-15 meets neither.
 
If we bought large numbers of new-build F-16s and brought the number of F-22s up to about 400, we would spend vastly less than we will on the F-35, while being able to meet all of our realistic needs for the foreseeable future.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 3:34:37 PM

After all you from the safety of your internet hide tried and failed to call me a liar. Here's your chance to PROVE that you might have a clue and that you ,ight be able to build a case. it go0es forectly to the point of your claim that the UAS technology was able to replace the F-22 in mission role in five years which is what you said .

Herald
 

WHAT I SAID... 


 No, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs. ISR and Time Critical Strike against Targets of Opportunity has taken the the lead in this regard. Contrary to some of the errors people have posted here, we are much closer to having UCAV's than people think that are capable of taking over significant portions of the roles we use manned platforms for. Particularly with regard to CAP, SEAD and Strike roles. And this doesn't even consider the roles they will take over that we use some rotor winged assets for now. 

We are past the peak of manned air combat. It's an area that is radically changing. Especially in the air to air domain. WE NEED F-22's. But with the current trend and considering other assets we can bring to bear not in any more numbers than we have already agreed to procure.
This is another one of those issues people will come back to 5 years from now and say, WOW how did you know that? The signs are clear if you know what to look for. But it requires a broad look across a range of military and technological disciplines to grasp.  

Now, this is my opinion. It's based on facts and my own military and civil experiences. It ***could*** be wrong. But I don't think so. If you, disagree, say so and let it be. There is no need to get wrapped around the axle calling people trolls because 1 guy you don't know on the internet thinks we don't need more F-22's. 

...clearly Herald you misinterpreted what I wrote which is as obvious as can be. Now, please, let it go. Everybody here understands what I wrote. If anybody else thinks I said that UAS were going to replace the F-22 in 5 years, how come you are the only one to interpret it that way? It is possible that you make a mistake in your interpretation. Now, above, without edit is a clear explaination. If you are sincere you should be able to see that there is a difference between my words and what you think I said. If you are going to deny that when your words and mine are both clear,

a. I think you are being disingenuous

b. you have a personal motive

I am trying to extend you a olive branch. Please take it and move on. The facts of who said what are clear to everyone except you.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   4/20/2009 3:38:10 PM
ALL government bureaucrats serve at the discretion of the PEOPLE (ME) and, as per the Constitution, can be removed by the PEOPLE (ME) via numerous constitutionally provided mechanisms.
Ok, God Forgive me, absolutely not true, check out the Hatch Act....it's too simple, I know what you mean, but really you're wrong, on this point especially.
 
You keep dreaming that Sebelius or Gates or Geitner work for YOU, directly...when of course even the Constitution says they work for the POTUS.
 
They work for those that appointed them and the interests of those that appointed/elected them...we HOPE that those interests and the "interests" of the US run parallel...but they needn't.  And it can be argued that the "Nation" has NO interests, whatsoever...
 
In fact, it is INARGUABLE, that institutions have no interests, PEOPLE do...ergo Obama/Dubya/Clinton et al. serve those that elected them, and in turn their appointees serve the POTUS and those interests that helped secure their appointments.  Your control, such as it is, is very indirect on Cabinet appointees. 
 
NO ONE serves the US, because the US has NO interests.  US interests, such as they are, are an amalgam of competing and cooperating interest groups desires, and their hierarchical ordering of policy preferences.  The US, per se, has no interests.....you, seemingly, represent those who have a different set of policy preferences than the Obama Administration.  As Obama said, "We won", the corollary is "You lost"....so your interests, as YOU define them, may or may not be served by the F-22 decision (Because interest groups can be WONG in their advocacy of certain policy preferences, and the decision to cancel the F-22 may or may NOT help/hurt your interests).
 
This should not be something to argue, it's obvious.  SecDef gates answers to POTUS Obama.  Who desires a reduction in the Defense Budget, John McCain would no doubt desire one too.  Combine that with OMB Orszag's and Gates' predilection to cut the F-22 and you have one obvious target for this budget reduction.  It is IRRELEVANT if 51% or 5% of the US populace wishes to keep the F-22, the policy-makers have their goals, budgetary and programmatic.  These they will implement.  In their minds, THEY ARE SERVING THE US NATIONAL INTEREST.  From their poV they serve the US Nation, by serving those that appointed them and set budgetary priorities...
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Procurement is not based on realistic goals here.   4/20/2009 3:43:32 PM
Its based on politics and the prejudices of some vwery incompetent people who don't read their own threat reports.
 
I'm still waiting for you to post one acceptable and competent point onm topic , poster, that doesn't appeal to "experts" that shows you have the original ability to analyze or originally think.
 
Considering that you were wrong about logistics, geography, SHOOTING, battle space management, boat handling, UCAV's I just wonder where you get off calling anybody ignorant or a liar?
 
What gives you that right again? Your opinion which we are supposed to take on your word?
 
You can solve a lot of issues for yourself poster, just do some original work. Should take you about fifteen minutes., 
 
Prove that you are qualified. Do a little analysis. The sad fact is that you CAN'T.
 
Otherwise you wouldn't keep running away from it in the technocals when youh are challenged.
 .
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    But Phaid   4/20/2009 3:45:10 PM
Why can't we just buy new, upgraded F-15's then and not buy ANY F-22's?  Why is it that the F-22 is necessary, but a 30 y.o air frame is "good enough" for the F-16...I say if we can just keep turning out F-16's new and upgraded; then we can do the same with the F-15 and delete  the need for the F-22, as well.
 
Sure you want to damage the Navy...when you zero out the R&D for the USS Ford, you effectively CANCEL the USS Ford...so you kill the Navy of tomorrow for the USAF of today...now that may or may not be good policy, but please at least accept that this what the results of your policy decision would be. 
 
Alternatively, at a minimum, you jack up the FUTURE cost of the USS Ford, because you can't just start and stop an R&D process, or any process and to do so merely compounds your future cost(s)....and by jacking up the future cost of a program you increase the likelihood of its cancellation.
 
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