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
DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 3:40:26 PM


You still are also ignoring the fact NOT ONE nation has actually put pen to paper and commited to buying ONE F35 as of yet. Not one DA. Ya know, you have lectured me several timesa about being open minded and listening to reason. But you are being completely bull headed and acting like an individual reading right from a script. I'm just the rookie here and know it but I have been following the JSF over the last 18-24 months and do have a basic understanding of what has been going on with it. It has CONSTANTLY continued to go up in price and that is not specualtion DA. It's just plain fact. To assume that now all the sudden its done goin up in price when the very agencys such as GAO, who elected officials pay a great deal of attention to, indicate just the opposite of what you insist on saying. How you dismiss the GAO as easily as you do me has to make one wonder just what is going on in your head. You remind of me of those old movies where the gunnie tells the Marine to charge the machine gun cuz he's a Marine and bullets dont hurt him and the Marines says yes sir and promptly charges the machine gun and promptly dies.

 

Feel free to disagree and factor cost as whatever makes you happy Beazzz. When you want to know how it going to play out just ask me and I'll tell you whats really going on in my opinion. Also I don't dismiss you, it;s just that you argue unsupported positions and you have consistently been consistently shown to be in error on this subject as has been pointed out to you. It's not a knock on you personally, but I believe you are entirely and completely wrong. Bottom line is, the USAF is committed to buying the F-35 is the numbers I mentioned. That was confirmed by the SecDef and USAF CoS. When such individuals publish or state something that suggest otherwise, I'll consider it then I DO NOT SEE A REASON FOR LESS at this time. I saw and predicted years ago on this site that the F-22 was terminal and would be capped. That happened. Thats because I am looking at requirements and threats as is and not how I wish them to be based on wild speculation on PRCs or whoever else. I have no biases or prejudices for or against any nation or threat. I neither love nor hate. I just make decisions based on data I believe to be accurate. It doesn't mean I'm always right. But more often than not as you can see from actual results. I do not see any justification in continued F-22 production. I do see a need for F-35 and threats across the spectrum we can use them for. Moreover, I see feverish energy being put into the program. So I have no reason right now to believe we will see any F-35 cuts in the immediate future. Of course in 10 years something could change that. And if that happens at that time decisions will be made. But for now, there is nothing suggesting any less than what's been stated for the USAF and I'm sticking with that. Everything suggest shift away from F-22 toward F-35...



On Tuesday, the F-22?s chief backer in Congress, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), said he wasn?t giving up continuing the program just yet but acknowledged the program?s future doesn?t look bright.

However, Lockheed?s chief financial officer said the ultimate impact at the Marietta plant, where final assembly of the F-22 employs 2,000 workers, might not be as bad as first expected.

That?s because while the F-22 program might be going away in the next several years, the Defense Department?s plans to ramp up production on another fighter jet — the F-35 — as well as two cargo planes could save many jobs at the Marietta plant, which does work on those planes as well.

?We?re fortunate at Marietta that at the same time we?re seeing a downturn of the F-22 production, we?re seeing a significant uptick in [cargo plane] production for the C-130J program, as well ? as the C-5 program,? Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Bruce Tanner said in a conference call with investors.

?It remains to be seen if those things unwind perfectly to be able to avoid any kind of issues [in Marietta], and we?ll have to take a look at seeing what elements of the F-35 program can be moved around between different ? locations,? Tanner said. ?But that?s something we?ll obviously strive to do to have as little disruption as possible to the Marietta workforce.?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently announced that he wants to buy only four more F-22s, effectively ending the program probably sometime in the first quarter of 2012. The Air Force is expected to have 187 of the planes by then.

Tanner said Lockheed tried to fight for continuation of the F-22 program, but indicated the company had all but given up.

?We?ve had our chance to lobby this matter, we think we?ve had a full hearing of that discussion and we?re disappointed by the decisions, but we?ll accept those and go on,? he said.

Gates? decision to end purchases of the fighter jets, which cost $140 million each — double that when research and development costs are added in — touched off a firestorm in Congress.

The battle lines are different this time, Chambliss said. ?Every other time we?ve had to fight for the F-22, I?ve had the Pentagon with us, the Air Force with us, and I?ve had Lockheed with us,? Chambliss said.

?We need all three of them if possible, but we know the Pentagon is in opposition to us, the Air Force looks like they?ve signed on to Gates? budget ? so I?m very concerned where Lockheed is now.?

Chambliss, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he wants 60 more of the planes to be built, not just the four more that the Defense Department has said it wants.
?It was going to be an uphill fight anyway, but you?ve got to have them [Lockheed] on board with you; otherwise, it makes it an extremely difficult battle,? he said. 

 
...If you wish to quibble with LB over final price go right ahead.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/29/2009 4:41:48 PM






You still are also ignoring the fact NOT ONE nation has actually put pen to paper and commited to buying ONE F35 as of yet. Not one DA. Ya know, you have lectured me several timesa about being open minded and listening to reason. But you are being completely bull headed and acting like an individual reading right from a script. I'm just the rookie here and know it but I have been following the JSF over the last 18-24 months and do have a basic understanding of what has been going on with it. It has CONSTANTLY continued to go up in price and that is not specualtion DA. It's just plain fact. To assume that now all the sudden its done goin up in price when the very agencys such as GAO, who elected officials pay a great deal of attention to, indicate just the opposite of what you insist on saying. How you dismiss the GAO as easily as you do me has to make one wonder just what is going on in your head. You remind of me of those old movies where the gunnie tells the Marine to charge the machine gun cuz he's a Marine and bullets dont hurt him and the Marines says yes sir and promptly charges the machine gun and promptly dies.



 




Feel free to disagree and factor cost as whatever makes you happy Beazzz. When you want to know how it going to play out just ask me and I'll tell you whats really going on in my opinion. Also I don't dismiss you, it;s just that you argue unsupported positions and you have consistently been consistently shown to be in error on this subject as has been pointed out to you. It's not a knock on you personally, but I believe you are entirely and completely wrong. Bottom line is, the USAF is committed to buying the F-35 is the numbers I mentioned. That was confirmed by the SecDef and USAF CoS. When such individuals publish or state something that suggest otherwise, I'll consider it then I DO NOT SEE A REASON FOR LESS at this time. I saw and predicted years ago on this site that the F-22 was terminal and would be capped. That happened. Thats because I am looking at requirements and threats as is and not how I wish them to be based on wild speculation on PRCs or whoever else. I have no biases or prejudices for or against any nation or threat. I neither love nor hate. I just make decisions based on data I believe to be accurate. It doesn't mean I'm always right. But more often than not as you can see from actual results. I do not see any justification in continued F-22 production. I do see a need for F-35 and threats across the spectrum we can use them for. Moreover, I see feverish energy being put into the program. So I have no reason right now to believe we will see any F-35 cuts in the immediate future. Of course in 10 years something could change that. And if that happens at that time decisions will be made. But for now, there is nothing suggesting any less than what's been stated for the USAF and I'm sticking with that. Everything suggest shift away from F-22 toward F-35...











On Tuesday, the F-22?s chief backer in Congress, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), said he wasn?t giving up continuing the program just yet but acknowledged the program?s future doesn?t look bright.


However, Lockheed?s chief financial officer said the ultimate impact at the Marietta plant, where final assembly of the F-22 employs 2,000 workers, might not be as bad as first expected.


That?s because while the F-22 program might be going away in the next several years, the Defense Department?s plans to ramp up production on another fighter jet — the F-35 — as well as two cargo planes could save many jobs at the Marietta plant, which does work on those planes as well.


?We?re fortunate at Marietta that at the same time we?re seeing a downturn of the F-22 production, we?re seeing a significant uptick in [cargo plane] production for the C-130J program, as well ? as the C-5 program,? Lockheed Chief Financial Officer Bruce Tanner said in a conference call with investors.


?It remains to be seen if those things unwind perfectly to be able to avoid any kind of issues [in Marietta], and we?ll have to take a look at seeing what elements of the F-35 program can be moved around between different ? locations,? Tanner said. ?But that?s something we?ll obviously strive to do to have as little disruption as possible to the Marietta workforce.?


Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently announced that he wants to buy only four more F-22s, effectively ending the program probably sometime in the first quarter of 2012. The Air Force is expected to have 187 of the planes by then.


Tanner said Lockheed tried to fight for continuation of the F-22 program, but indicated the company had all but given up.


?We?ve had our chance to lobby this matter, we think we?ve had a full hearing of that discussion and we?re disappointed by the decisions, but we?ll accept those and go on,? he said.


Gates? decision to end purchases of the fighter jets, which cost $140 million each — double that when research and development costs are added in — touched off a firestorm in Congress.


The battle lines are different this time, Chambliss said. ?Every other time we?ve had to fight for the F-22, I?ve had the Pentagon with us, the Air Force with us, and I?ve had Lockheed with us,? Chambliss said.


?We need all three of them if possible, but we know the Pentagon is in opposition to us, the Air Force looks like they?ve signed on to Gates? budget ? so I?m very concerned where Lockheed is now.?


Chambliss, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has said he wants 60 more of the planes to be built, not just the four more that the Defense Department has said it wants.



?It was going to be an uphill fight anyway, but you?ve got to have them [Lockheed] on board with you; otherwise, it makes it an extremely difficult battle,? he said. 




 


...If you wish to quibble with LB over final price go right ahead.







-DA 


LOL>. DA, your arrogance is nothing short of astounding. You have never shown me or anyone else to be in error on any of this. Yes, it is true you say you do and therefore in the mind of DA it is so. But the reality is you show nothing and when shown other official government documents you dismiss them as it does not fit into the DA mindset of knowing just how it is going to play out. You actually are so naieve as to think YOU told everyone the F22 was going to be capped. Good God DA, I don;'t know ANYONE that did not think it WAS going to be cut !! NOT ONE person. Yes, many have argued why it should not, and still do, but that does not mean they did not think it would not happen. How you somehow think YOU have graced all with your superior knowledge is, well. laughable I swear it. You told me before I had embarrased myself. Well DA, you should be embarrased because you are making a complete fool of yourself with your arrogance and delusional mind. You somehow think when you say *I am right and you are wrong* that is now fact? Gawdddd..
 
Ya know DA, you actually used to bother me. Now I actually feel sorry for you. You're simply an old soldier boy that has no mind of his own and unable to see, do or say anything other then what told . I'm sure you make a very good soldier DA. All the best to you and your career.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/29/2009 5:14:48 PM




There is no reason why the USAF isn't going to buy the full 1700+ F-35's plus.



 

Im sure someone said the same thing about the F-22 in 1991 when the AF thought they were going to buy 750. Now, unless Congress wishes to purchase more we are left with 187. Before 2035 the actual number of F-35's will change probably 10 times. I wonder if a change in doctrine will have anything to do with that?






REASON. If the REASON for 1700+ F-35s changes just like the REASON for > 187 Raptors did then YES. But then that would be justified as was the F-22 cap. This is not a hard concept to understand. Whats different about 1991 and 2009? Again, REASONS.







 

-DA 

You can use pretty yellow highlighter all you want but you implied that there was NO REASON why the AF would not purchase that many indicating that YOU cannot see just cause for the AF not building  anything less than 1700 regardless of timeframe. I'm sure we all understand if a nuclear war wiped out the planet that there are circumstances that would change how many were built Darth, I was merely stating that someone probably made a similar comment about the Raptor in 1991.
If I make a statement such as there is no reason why the New York Giants will not win the next super bowl then I am essentially guaranteeing a victory, meaning that all the pieces will fall into place and no matter what happens during the course of the season it will not affect the outcome.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 5:41:13 PM
Beazzz,

Look, I CLEARLY stated that this was my opinion, I cited examples when my opinions have proven correct, I told you that I HEARD AND DID NOT DISMISS YOUR POINT OF VIEW, however, I disagree and use different standards. Why not just agree to disagree and just move on? What the hell does it matter to you that I, ME, think that an F-35 cost 80 mil? Just say, nah, I dont think so, and move on. Why do you feel in necessary to attempt to insult me for being a soldier as some mindless zombie because I don't agree with you? Don't worry about feeling sorry for me. Just up the level of maturity in your debate and don't digress down the path of darkness that makes people take personal when an anonymous person on the internet disagrees with some trivial issue.

You think F-35 cost 100-200 million or so, FINE. I disagree and say 80 mil.

You think the F-22 is the best fighter and don't want it cut, FINE. I disagree and think it should be.

You think SecDef Gates is wrong and setting us up for failure, FINE. I dont.

You think we will not buy 1700 + F-35, FINE. I disagree and see that the USAF has published and not changed plans for that number.


What's so hard about that concept of debate? Why is it necessary for me to be arrogant and for you to refer to my military career in a derogatory manner because I don't share your view? Who is exactly being arrogant again? Geez man grow up and get over it. It's OK for people to see things differently. Are you old enough to remember Bobby Brown? It's "my prerogative" to believe what I will. You don't have to agree at all. In fact, just do as I have done with you. Accept that we disagree and let whatever data you have in support stand on it's own.

 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 5:47:32 PM


There is no reason why the USAF isn't going to buy the full 1700+ F-35's plus.



Im sure someone said the same thing about the F-22 in 1991 when the AF thought they were going to buy 750. Now, unless Congress wishes to purchase more we are left with 187. Before 2035 the actual number of F-35's will change probably 10 times. I wonder if a change in doctrine will have anything to do with that?
REASON. If the REASON for 1700+ F-35s changes just like the REASON for > 187 Raptors did then YES. But then that would be justified as was the F-22 cap. This is not a hard concept to understand. Whats different about 1991 and 2009? Again, REASONS.



-DA 
You can use pretty yellow highlighter all you want but you implied that there was NO REASON why the AF would not purchase that many indicating that YOU cannot see just cause for the AF not building  anything less than 1700 regardless of timeframe. I'm sure we all understand if a nuclear war wiped out the planet that there are circumstances that would change how many were built Darth, I was merely stating that someone probably made a similar comment about the Raptor in 1991.

If I make a statement such as there is no reason why the New York Giants will not win the next super bowl then I am essentially guaranteeing a victory, meaning that all the pieces will fall into place and no matter what happens during the course of the season it will not affect the outcome.

Wrong, what I said is that as things stand now, we will be getting 1700 F-35s. That was a rather direct statement of fact. If however, circumstances dictate A REASON for buying more or less, that is a decision to be made at that time and the mitigating factor is that the people making that decision are likely to be qualified enough to do so.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/29/2009 8:05:30 PM

Beazzz,




Look, I CLEARLY stated that this was my opinion, I cited examples when my opinions have proven correct, I told you that I HEARD AND DID NOT DISMISS YOUR POINT OF VIEW, however, I disagree and use different standards. Why not just agree to disagree and just move on? What the hell does it matter to you that I, ME, think that an F-35 cost 80 mil? Just say, nah, I dont think so, and move on. Why do you feel in necessary to attempt to insult me for being a soldier as some mindless zombie because I don't agree with you? Don't worry about feeling sorry for me. Just up the level of maturity in your debate and don't digress down the path of darkness that makes people take personal when an anonymous person on the internet disagrees with some trivial issue.




You think F-35 cost 100-200 million or so, FINE. I disagree and say 80 mil.




You think the F-22 is the best fighter and don't want it cut, FINE. I disagree and think it should be.




You think SecDef Gates is wrong and setting us up for failure, FINE. I dont.




You think we will not buy 1700 + F-35, FINE. I disagree and see that the USAF has published and not changed plans for that number.







What's so hard about that concept of debate? Why is it necessary for me to be arrogant and for you to refer to my military career in a derogatory manner because I don't share your view? Who is exactly being arrogant again? Geez man grow up and get over it. It's OK for people to see things differently. Are you old enough to remember Bobby Brown? It's "my prerogative" to believe what I will. You don't have to agree at all. In fact, just do as I have done with you. Accept that we disagree and let whatever data you have in support stand on it's own.




 







-DA 
Da, you are doing it again. I don't *think* the F35 cost $100-$200 mil. The very chart you presented shows this. That is what I am talking about. You simply ignore what does not suit your stance as if it is not even there. It is IN YOUR artcile DA. I guess it matters to me for the same reason you insist on saying it doesn't? Why does anyone on any of these forums say anything about anything then?
DA, I assure you I am older then you and I know arrogance when I see it. I have worked around arrogant people my entire FAA career. But never have I saw it displayed in the manner in which you strut it out. As for being deragatory about your military service, well you are dead wrong again. I don't know of anyone that respects the military and what they do more then me. It's just the manner in which you are always 100% in line with superiors no matter what it may be. That is simply NOT possible in the real world. I have always felt sorry for young men and women that were not able to have their own mind and speak it and that is now how I feel is what you are is all. It's nothing personal and certainly not meant as an insult to the military. I honesly do feel sorry for you on a human level DA, as I would anyone that was not allowed to be free to have their own thoughts. I simply cannot fathom not having my own mind and own thoughts and being able to state them any time, anywhere and to anyone.  No insult intended.
 
Anyhow I now understand you completely and no need for me at least to continue any further with this. Again, best of luck with your military career.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 9:59:20 PM





We have posters claiming that UCAVs aren't mature enough for this or that. Well I can tell you that is laughable. Sure, just ike any new program they aren't perfect. But the USA could field IOC UCAVs in the next 5 years capable of doing ANY mission a manned fighter does. That is of course my opinion and I am in a position to know that. Feel free to disagree of course as this is an opinion based on technologies I've seen some of which are freakin public knowledge.



-DA

Is an F22 a manned fighter???--yes I think so-actually it is undeniable.

HERALD WAS AS USUAL RIGHT when he made his statement about your statement that an F22 can be replaced by a UCAV in 5 years.You owe Herald an apology for calling him a liar as well as all the others here you are so keen to dismiss.

Maybe you owe me $100 too.

My 2 cents and I am NO EXPERT

Read more carefully next time you drop in to start a flame war. I didn't say ANYTHING about replacing the F-22 with a UCAV. In fact I clearly said, which you didn't mention, WE NEED F-22. What I above is we can field UCAV technology capable of doing any mission. Air to Air, Air to Ground, SEAD, DEAD, NTISR, CAS and RECCE. The MQ-9 DOES a lot of what we used manned fighters for. But it is not a complete replacement. It is you who owes the apology. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    ANOTHER HERALD FLAME   4/29/2009 10:23:31 PM

AGAIN, ANOTHER BASELESS FLAME/TROLL POST FROM A PERSON OUT TO VOICE A GRUDGE IN A PUBLIC FORUM OVER A DIFFERENCE IN POLITICAL VIEWS.

Herald, maybe you might want to read more closely so that you don't miss that fact that I was referring to specific types of cruise missile performance and Brahmos is only an example. But it's obvious you aren't here to actually contribute any meaningful dialogue. Get over it dude. You are making yourself look very immature, petty and small.

-DA 


You claimed that they exist., NAME THEM.

When you fail, and you will, I will illustrate yet again what you DON'T know, poster. 

Herald


 
Another falsehood. I addressed "types of missiles" and I never said as of this date and when I elaborated, I made it clear. I was even clear with regard to when Sub and Air launched Brahmos could be expected. Moreover, Why would any of this be relevant to the debate? The 60 extra F-22s you are mentioning for your CONUS idea haven't been built yet so why would we use THIS DATE when the USAF doesn't have the platform density to do what you proposed...lol. You need to be looking at the timeframe where a hypothetical 243 F-22 fleet is fully mission capable. 

Nice try Herald but you need to get over this senseless personal beef and just debate the topic. I can see your strawman arguments a mile away. You aren't capable of illustrating what I don't know because you are too focused on initiating an argument rather than debating the topic. If you let go of this spirit of hate and emotion you have and explain logically your points within the bounds of the rules CIVILY. You might be surprised how much WE BOTH could learn from each other. In any event the data I put up clearly shows massive holes in your defensive perimeter against all class of threat.
 
 
-DA




 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Bandying words.   4/30/2009 10:38:28 AM




AGAIN, ANOTHER BASELESS FLAME/TROLL POST FROM A PERSON OUT TO VOICE A GRUDGE IN A PUBLIC FORUM OVER A DIFFERENCE IN POLITICAL VIEWS.




Herald, maybe you might want to read more closely so that you don't miss that fact that I was referring to specific types of cruise missile performance and Brahmos is only an example. But it's obvious you aren't here to actually contribute any meaningful dialogue. Get over it dude. You are making yourself look very immature, petty and small.




-DA 






You claimed that they exist., NAME THEM.




When you fail, and you will, I will illustrate yet again what you DON'T know, poster. 




Herald






 

Another falsehood. I addressed "types of missiles" and I never said as of this date and when I elaborated, I made it clear. I was even clear with regard to when Sub and Air launched Brahmos could be expected. Moreover, Why would any of this be relevant to the debate? The 60 extra F-22s you are mentioning for your CONUS idea haven't been built yet so why would we use THIS DATE when the USAF doesn't have the platform density to do what you proposed...lol. You need to be looking at the timeframe where a hypothetical 243 F-22 fleet is fully mission capable. 




Nice try Herald but you need to get over this senseless personal beef and just debate the topic. I can see your strawman arguments a mile away. You aren't capable of illustrating what I don't know because you are too focused on initiating an argument rather than debating the topic. If you let go of this spirit of hate and emotion you have and explain logically your points within the bounds of the rules CIVILY. You might be surprised how much WE BOTH could learn from each other. In any event the data I put up clearly shows massive holes in your defensive perimeter against all class of threat.

 

 

-DA












 



 




Quoting the poster......"types of missiles" then he trotted out Brahmos as his example and then posted a sales blurb as to sustain his incorrect assertions, and false conclusions. (How very like a certain class of unqualified poster). . If there are other types of missile like Brahmos, NAME THEM, and stop running away when challenged on this point. If there are submarine launched Brahmos missiles show them in weapon proof testing (not expected for at least two to five years) or retract that false assertion
 
Goes directly to poster's technical competence on topic.
 
Flame post? False argument. Deadly accurate challenge as to competency.
 
The poster contun ues to red herring, straw man and he rins from the direct point everyu tome he is challenged.
 
Name the missilers and quantify the claimjs or retract them. In fact quantify the whole 187 F-22 limit or abandon that argument altogether.  If the poster cannot support it by the nimbers and RUN THE NUMBERS as I've done five times, then he might as well admit that he has no case and abandon it in defeat. 
 
 By the numbers; and name the missiles.
 
 
Herald


 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Grow Up   4/30/2009 11:52:43 AM
Herald,

Not interested in a chest beating contest with you. When you tone down, show some respect, ditch the "The Poster" crap, stop the flaming and insults, I'll discuss issues with you as I do everyone else. 700+ responses and 30000+ views. There are plenty of others here interested enough in the topic that I don't have to waste time arguing your logical fallacies and playing "gotcha" games on the internet. When you are ready to discuss this as an adult and without getting personal, I'm game. I don't hold grudges. Until then you can just follow my post and threads.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Chain of Command   4/30/2009 1:22:03 PM
So your position is the chain of command is infallible and/or the only accepted source for all information?
 
In any case I didn't ask you to use any other source of information than DOD public documents.  I simply asked you to prove your assertion as to F-35 costs.  You have since modified that statement that to only the F-35A and that it's possible the cost could rise to $100 million.
 
You might want to find out exactly what the mix is in those 1,700 projected USAF F-35s as the stated position of the USAF is that it will purchase some number of F-35Bs and that exact is yet to be determined.  You'll note the current projected cost of the B model in the USN FY2009 Budget Estimates being north of $130. 
 
I'm curious to see what you position is when we are talking about the FY2010 budget.  Will your position then be the old budgets were in fact wrong since the new one contains new numbers?
 
The fact is you speak of current projections as "factual".  They are not.  Moreover, the numbers clash sharply between USN and USAF FY2009 by around 50%.  Which is interesting given the stated cost difference for the FY09 buy for each service is an order of magnitude less.  What conclusions do you make from all these facts from the FY09 Budget documents?  
 
The facts are the costs in the F-35 program are rising sharply.  Nobody knows what an F-35 will really cost.  Nobody.  DOD puts out new estimates every year.  Talking about current year projections without the context of past year DOD projections is to engage in an exercise devoid of rational thought and indeed to deny the ability to engage in rationality.
 
In any case considering your position that the F-35 might cost north of $100 million you might want to reconsider your position about F-35 vs F-22 cost effectiveness.  Based on todays projections one can easily make a case for more F-22s at the direct expense of F-35s.  If your position is that this can't be valid because current DOD policy does not support this then please don't bother posting a reply.  It's way beyond tedious.
 
 

LB,




You can ask all you want. I will never use for any reason another number other than ~80 million as the average fly away unit cost for an F-35A on this website or any other in my estimates until a public statement is made by LM or the USAF saying otherwise. I will allow for the possibility that the cost for the F-35A could potentially grow to ~100 million before being fixed. I think this is reasonable and other than that you are going to have to agree to disagree because my mind cannot and will not be changed on this outside of the reasons I mentioned.




-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/30/2009 1:47:28 PM


In any case considering your position that the F-35 might cost north of $100 million you might want to reconsider your position about F-35 vs F-22 cost effectiveness.  Based on todays projections one can easily make a case for more F-22s at the direct expense of F-35s.  If your position is that this can't be valid because current DOD policy does not support this then please don't bother posting a reply.  It's way beyond tedious.


LB,

The F-35 is necessary in the numbers stated earlier, 1700+ for the USAF. The F-35 fly away cost IS 83 million. I do not think that will change much. If it does, that has no bearing whatsoever on the F-22 which should still not be procured beyond 187 as the F-35 requirement is different. 

 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Goes to competency.   4/30/2009 2:10:06 PM

Herald,




Not interested in a chest beating contest with you. When you tone down, show some respect, ditch the "The Poster" crap, stop the flaming and insults, I'll discuss issues with you as I do everyone else. 700+ responses and 30000+ views. There are plenty of others here interested enough in the topic that I don't have to waste time arguing your logical fallacies and playing "gotcha" games on the internet. When you are ready to discuss this as an adult and without getting personal, I'm game. I don't hold grudges. Until then you can just follow my post and threads.




-DA 
I don't take orders from you, poster. Got that? With that oiut of the way, I note that you were unable to answer the questions posed and thus conceded that you couldn't. Concession noted and published.  
 
 But lets not leave it at that.
 
Reposted THIS to show the unqualified poster why he isn't qualified to call anyone a child; or attempt to discuss issues when he doesn't have the necessary information to back up his assertions or can even do the math...
Herald12345       4/30/2009 1:44:54 PM

Herald12345,

At some point you need speed and altitude to bomb?
Yes, you do unless you want to be blown up by your own ordnance. 

This issue has been ongoing since Vietnam.  While bombing in well defended airspace you obviously want speed and sometimes altitude.  Speed gives you defense.  But in low intensity conflicts, high speed bombers or attack aircraft simply cannot provide the support that ground troops want in 2 forms.

Let's look at that.

1 form is the physical presence of an aircraft.  A high speed attack aircraft will zip by, strafe once or drop a bomb and then be gone.  A small, propeller driven aircraft can loiter over the area, very close to the action, creating the image of deniability that a fighter simply can't do.  Of course that prop driven aircraft would be a great target but that's why in low intensity conflicts this aircraft is great.  There are limited quantities of manpads, triple A is available often only in the form of an AK47.  Its perfect.

The manpad is there. The AAA in the form of the small auto-cannon is there as well. Out to a slant range of about 2000 meters ground fire is deadly.  CAS doesn't mean here you have to have a visible aircraft.  It means you can put ordnance ACCURATELY onto the enemy when you need it. That is all. The propeller driven plane has its place in this, but it is not the only way to solve the same problem. The propeller plane's chief drawback is that it is slow, and not very good at first stage shove of ordnance. Remember that.  I will return to it. 
 
I'm in a dispute with many (including Warpig and Rocky) when it comes to weapons applications to a problem. When a weapon is used, or released, it has to be effective and under positive control. I am very reluctant to use a weapon to solve a problem  when there are other methods,  but when that weapon is released to solve a problem, I expect it to KILL, not bluff, not deter by presence, but KILL.   
 
I reject presence as a justification for a weapon's existence. That is McNamara thinking and is the height of folly

2 Second form is accuracy and raw firepower.  A strafe run of 20mm is an awesome sight but a strafing run from multiple .50 cals from an aircraft is a far more devastating antipersonnel attack especially when that fella can get in real close, thanks to his speed, keep eyes on target, stay low and smoke those baddies.
Bullets are never as accurate as a guided glide bomb. Too much bullet scatter and there is the danger of hitting own troops or wrong target in a firing pass. The bomb depending on SMASH can be buried into a fortified enemy or dug in enemy and usually be steered at the right bunch of idiots.  I expect the enemy to die, not be driven to cover by gunfire. Effective is actual results versus expectations. When is strafing necessary? To drive the enemy under cover so that own troops can extricate from an enemy for example, or target of opportunity? Bombs on target is another answer.

The Air Force for too long has been strategy driven with a purely strategic mindset.  Proper evaluation of tactical level air power has been an afterthought as in: "Oh yeah, we'll build a nuke bomber but hey, let's throw some 2000 pounders on there too, why not?"  They've forgotten that its all about supporting the dude on the ground.  Even the F-22, don't forget it exists to gain air superiority so that other attack aircraft can move in and do the work, yeah, I just said that, its a support aircraft at heart.

James Dunnigan would agree with you, but he tends to ignore that attacking an enemy far behind the fromt to destroy infrastructure is the main Air Force combat mission to put the enemy army you face out of supply. Armed reconnaissance with bomb laden aircraft to attack enemy troops beyond Army reach is part of that. Road nets, factories, power plants, bridges, and your occasional Taliban grouping sneaking in from Baluchistan to Helmand  etc don't just blow themselves up. They need a little help.

Your comparison of peeling back an onion is totally flawed because most of the low intensity conflicts simply don't have that layer there.  Finally, propellers generate more thrust at slower airspeeds, are far more efficient at low altitude, and do have a fantastic loiter capability.  So yeah, a prop will get you there.
 
A prop is inefficient at all speeds (drag). A prop plane has an acceleration advantage at up to Mach 0.4 After that, its the jet that accelerates and generates more SHOVE. Remember that glide bomb I discussed?  You have to lob it.  Faster you can accelerate, the faster the bomb goes and the farther the reach from a patrol station (You talked about loiter and coverage remember?) 
 
 
You can't launch that easily from this
 
 
 
 
600,000 m/h at 10000 meters and no shove and you have a slant of 312,000 meters and your bombs available are NOT glide bombs nor do you have the ability to use those. 
 
On the other hand...........
 
 
 
750,000 m/h at 17000 meters with a slant at 465,000 meters. Practically speaking to get the thing to fly you have to wire it so to teleoperate and have positive control.  Since the stupid thing is supposed to use the same control; architecture as the  MQ-9 you will have the means to carry an SDB on it. The bird can accelerate enough SHOVE at altitude to lob the SDB to the full 200,000 meter reach at slant.
 

 
 
They complement each other. The idea is COVERAGE and on time call. For our purposes; if you need  to wipe out a mortar crew in twelve minutes, a Tucano at 10,000 meters altitude fifteen minutes away is just about useless. However the orbiting UAS sitting at 17000 meters (or a manned bomber) can point at you and make a launch run.
 
Let's do a little math.  
 
Super Tuc at 600,000 m/h=166 m/s.   He's 150,000 meters away @ 10,000 meters altitude. and he has to come down to you to use cannon and rockets. How long does it take him to get within 5000 meters of you? 873 seconds or about 14 and a half minutes and you still need to vector him for a strafe..  
 
UAS (Avenger) at 750,000 m/h=208 m/s. He's 150,000 meters away at 17,000 meters. The bird points at you and lines up on your targeting telemetry. That will take a minute. How soon before the bomb arrives?  Adding gravitation to the fall the bomb will accelerate to about 270 m/s. The bomb will take 600 seconds or about ten minutes including the time to line up and aim..  
 
Now if you have a fighter that can go to reheat? THAT is a lot of shove. Said  fighter at 17000 meters @ 400 m/s will be overhead in 375 seconds or six and a quarter minutes, and that 400 m's bomb will arrive at the enemy mortar position at about the same time.
 
Give me a decade and we'll have that jet boosted bomb arriving at Mach 6+ or in about or < 80 seconds or less than a minute and a half from 150,000 meters away, but for that  we need MANNED FIGHTERS-super cruising HIGH ALTITUDE manned fighters. 
Now do you see why you need high speed high altitude jets?

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/30/2009 2:36:29 PM
You're a joke. Have fun arguing with your own strawman arguments. Bottom line, you can't protect CONUS from CM threats with just 50 Raptors and I've demonstrated that beyond any doubt and you would not find a single person here to support you that knows that they are talking about. I know it's impossible to ask you to stop insulting and flaming in order to have a discussion that flow through to a conclusion so I'll agree to disagree. I'll add that to your other non-viable suggestions such as "Bomb Widows", "Missiles for Merchants" and asserting that the Border Patrol can fight Mexican Drug Commandoes...lol

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/30/2009 3:57:17 PM






In any case considering your position that the F-35 might cost north of $100 million you might want to reconsider your position about F-35 vs F-22 cost effectiveness.  Based on todays projections one can easily make a case for more F-22s at the direct expense of F-35s.  If your position is that this can't be valid because current DOD policy does not support this then please don't bother posting a reply.  It's way beyond tedious.








LB,




The F-35 is necessary in the numbers stated earlier, 1700+ for the USAF. The F-35 fly away cost IS 83 million. I do not think that will change much. If it does, that has no bearing whatsoever on the F-22 which should still not be procured beyond 187 as the F-35 requirement is different. 




 



 

-DA









LOL... No DA, right NOW the fly away cost is ~200 million bucks. IF the FULL 1763 the USAF says it wants is procured, IF the USN/USMC get all they want, IF ALL partner nations get ALL they committed for ( of which not ONE has signed on the dotted line for yet, FACT ), IF all partner nations get ALL a/c on schedule and do not put them off to later builds ( which would cause either the US to have to buy them at the enormous front end price, FACT,  or take if off the TOTAL which would also push up the final cost, FACT ), IF NOT ONE delay is incurred,  all the way out to 2035, in other words, IF HELL freezes over and the sun rises in the West,  THEN the fly away *could* be a todays ESTIMATE of 83 mil.. Those are the actual facts as we all know them. I've led you to the watering hole DA, I cannot however make you drink. That's up to you. ;-)
You have absolutely NO basis to state you don't think that will change much. NONE at all DA. On the other hand, those who think the price is likely to climb have EVERY reason to think this will happen. Every year since this thing has been going, the cost has increased. Not one year has it stayed the same or went down. NOT ONE. Based on past practice, any reasonable person that is able to formulate their own opinion,  could assume that not only is it possible the price is going to continue to climb, but that is most likely PROBABLE. The only real question is how much, not *if* it will happen.  Those are the clear facts you simply are unable to see.
 
But don't worry. Next year you will be given permission to think otherwise. That I WILL bet you $100 right now?? care to take me up on it? If you don't bet cash, how about a cold one or three or nine? The bet being, that one year from now the *estimated* cost from YOUR DoD sources will be HIGHER then now. Bet or no bet DA????
 
Concerned civilian citizen Beazz ;-)
 
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