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       4/30/2009 4:06:28 PM
No thanks Beazzz keep the $100 dollars. I prefer not to engage in this kind of internet speculation. FOr me, the document I linked you to says, 83 million, I'm choosing to believe that the unit flyaway cost is going to be about 83 million. That to me sounds reasonable given the cost of the fighters in service these days. I look at requirements. So I'll also not jump off the deep end and make the assertion as you have that the USAF won't buy 1700 F-35s without some sort of change in the requirement or a better more cost effective solution is introduced. Also, ditch the not being able to think freely crap. It makes you look silly and misinformed about how things are in the service. If you know anything about the US Military you know we think freely and our opinions vary wildly. That's long been considered one of our greatest strengths.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/30/2009 4:45:28 PM

No thanks Beazzz keep the $100 dollars. I prefer not to engage in this kind of internet speculation. FOr me, the document I linked you to says, 83 million, I'm choosing to believe that the unit flyaway cost is going to be about 83 million. That to me sounds reasonable given the cost of the fighters in service these days. I look at requirements. So I'll also not jump off the deep end and make the assertion as you have that the USAF won't buy 1700 F-35s without some sort of change in the requirement or a better more cost effective solution is introduced. Also, ditch the not being able to think freely crap. It makes you look silly and misinformed about how things are in the service. If you know anything about the US Military you know we think freely and our opinions vary wildly. That's long been considered one of our greatest strengths.




-DA 
LOL.. You are a piece of work for sure DA. You don't even know what you own document says apparently. Maybe you ahve not actually even read the document? You seem to do this often by picking out ONE sentence in a document and completley ignoring all the rest of it and when it is pointed out to you, you simply seem to be unable to even hear it. Here's my analogy of you.
Two nations are at war. There are 2 generals running the one side. They have fought 10 battles so far and before each battle the intel for army X says army Y only has weapon A. But each battle army Y uses weapon A & B and causes many loses for army X. Now a huge battle is on the horizon and again intel for Army X says army Y will only have and be useing weapon A.
 
Now after getting burned in 10 battles earlier by poor intel general A says I am prepareing our guys for weapon A & B. But general B says NO you are not! Intel says army Y only has weapon A and that is all we will prepare for. General A points out to general B how each and every battle army Y has used weapon A & B and inflicted heavy looses. But no matter how it is explained to general B, he will not see things any other way and continues to say nope.. intel says army Y only has weapon A and that is all we will plan for.  General B is unable to grasp that that army Y has used weapon B every single time and it is not only likely, but almost an outright certainty they will use weapon B again. But general B will not budge. So general A takes half the troops and general B takes half. General A equips his troops for weapon A & B and general B does what he is programmed to do and only prepares for weapon A. The battle is fought. General A is prepared because he used common sense and did not simply rely on what intel told him, but on the reality of Army B's past practice and he inflicts heavy casualitys on army Y. General B however stuck to the company line and by God they are always right according to him and he sent his troops in prepared only for weapon A. Well as in every battle in the past army Y used weapon B as well and the half of the army X under command of general B  was not prepared and sustained heavy loses. They still won the battle, but lost thosuands of troops needlessly because of a commanding officer that could not think for himself and use comon sense.
 
Sound familiar DA. It should. You are general B.
 
Take care,
beazz

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/30/2009 5:04:27 PM
OK Beazz.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/30/2009 10:31:39 PM

Senators Pushing Back On F-22, C-17

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a letter now circulating among members of the Senate and calling for Secretary Gates to maintain production lines for both the F-22 and the C-17 "until the final publication of the next Mobility Capability Study and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review." The push back is being orchestrated by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch and while the letter is still circulating for signatures, I'm told that Senators Inhofe, Bennett, Chambliss and several Democrats have already offered their support.

The letter warns against an overcorrection in favor of counterinsurgency and urges Gates not to jeopardize America's "air hegemony" by ceasing production of two aircraft that provide critical airlift and air-to-air capability:

However, just as our nation made a strategic error in permitting our ability to successfully prosecute counterinsurgency campaigns to wither and atrophy after the Vietnam War, we must not make a similar mistake and undermine two of the unique foundations of our nation?s military strength: hegemony of the air and our unprecedented airlift capability. As you correctly stated this January, ?our military must be prepared for a ?full spectrum? of operations, including the type of combat we?re facing in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as large scale threats that we face from places like North Korea and Iran.? Therefore, we are concerned the termination of production of the F-22 does not appear to be supported by any analytical study commissioned by the Department of Defense or the Air Force. In addition, though the decision to end production of the C-17 at 205 aircraft was supported by the 2005 Mobility Capability Study, this Study was criticized by the Government Accountability Office for underestimating our nation?s future airlift requirements. We are also unaware of any risk assessment that has been performed based on the Combatant Commanders? requirements as to the decision to cease procurement of the F-22 and C-17.

Regarding the F-22, unclassified extracts of the Air Force?s Sustaining Air Dominance Study state ?180 F-22s was not enough? and the Department of Defense?s TACAIR Optimization study concluded the procurement of additional Raptors ?was the best option.? On April 16th, these conclusions were reinforced by the comments made by General Norton A. Schwartz after the F-22 procurement termination was announced. General Schwartz stated that ?243 [Raptors] is the military requirement.? This appears to be in direct contradiction to your statements on April 6th and 7th that there is no military requirement for more than 187 F-22s.

With the exception of the Joint Strike Fighter, which has a global, rather than domestic, constituency, no DoD program has quite as much Congressional support as the F-22 (there are contracts for the program in 48 states). It remains to be seen whether opposition in Congress will be sufficiently motivated and organized to push F-22 back into the budget over the objections of the administration, but members seem finally to be getting their act together after Gates announced the cuts at the beginning of their Easter recess.
 
Are we in agreement yet that the Air Force still believes that 243 is the minimum requirement or do the Senators have it all wrong?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/30/2009 10:45:27 PM


Are we in agreement yet that the Air Force still believes that 243 is the minimum requirement or do the Senators have it all wrong?


The Senators are not necessarily wrong. They are simply saying that they don't want to stop procurement of the F-22 until after the QDR. Of course, look at the timeline. Besides the QDR, what else happens in 2010 that the good Senators might be concerned about?

The OSD and USAF have made it clear that there isn't a requirement for more F-22's. Even if YOU or anyone else thinks otherwise, that is the official public policy on the issue. So it's quite literally up to Congress to make it legally binding to produce more. The real question is, how do they intend to pay for the 13 billion necessary? If they come up with a reasonable way to do that without taking away from other programs that is great. Otherwise, its not so great because 60 more Raptors will not in anyway put the USAF in a better position that it already is in terms of being able to do it's mission.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/30/2009 11:22:42 PM
The OSD and USAF have made it clear that there isn't a requirement for more F-22's
 
Incorrect statement, that is why I highlighted the paragraph. 
On April 16th, these conclusions were reinforced by the comments made by General Norton A. Schwartz after the F-22 procurement termination was announced. General Schwartz stated that ?243 [Raptors] is the military requirement.?
 
Someone might want to tell General Schwartz that his service has made it clear, because he didn't get the memo.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 1:14:33 AM

The OSD and USAF have made it clear that there isn't a requirement for more F-22's

 

Incorrect statement, that is why I highlighted the paragraph. 


On April 16th,
these conclusions were reinforced by the comments made by General
Norton A. Schwartz after the F-22 procurement termination was
announced. General Schwartz stated that ?243 [Raptors] is the military
requirement.?

 

Someone might want to tell General Schwartz that his service has made it clear, because he didn't get the memo.



Wrong. He did. Stop spinning the story. If there was a requirement for 243, Gen Schwartz would be lobbying Congress, not you. And there is another much more close to reality side of this story...

Sestak disagreed. Although he endorsed the Raptor, calling it the most capable tactical aircraft ever built, Sestak said the Air Force needs only 187. The former senior Navy official, drawing from his time inside the Pentagon, added that "you can run the scenario over and over and over" but there is no requirement for additional F-22s. He vaguely hinted that that scenario was a fight with China. For all future battles, Sestak said, the currently planned F-22 fleet would suffice. While some question whether the F-35 is stealthy enough to enter certain SAM- and advanced radar-riddled areas to engage enemy targets, Sestak said, military leaders can send in some Raptors to "create a corridor," then deploy electronic jamming-equipped aircraft to render ineffective enemy radars. With those Raptors engaging missile and radar systems, and the jamming planes shutting down the remaining radars, Sestak said, the F-35s could maneuver free of detection."

...I'm telling you the truth. People with no agenda who know how to analyze threats and those who have the experience cannot make up a credible scenario that does not rely on unrealistic hypothetical fantasy threat scenarios. ONE OF YOU ANY OF YOU SHOW discuss coherently a single realistic case where 126 combat coded planes out of the 187 would not be enough? You can't because such a scenario does not exist. I've tried for weeks to draft a situation where more Raptors would be necessary and I know it does not exist. Any enemy capable of defeating the combined might of the USAF with it's 187 Raptors would still defeat 243. Defeat of 187 Raptors means the enemy has either the technology or the strategy to overcome a mere 60 more. Think about that. At least the absurdly high number of 381 makes a tangible difference. 243 vs 187? No way. Not against likely opponents.  

link width="320" height="265">
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 1:33:55 AM
BASED ON MILITARY ADVICE INCLUDING FROM THE USAF, NO MILITARY REQUIREMENT BEYOND 187...

link width="320" height="265">  

 

 -DA
 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 3:09:46 AM
The A-10 is not a prop job and does an EXCELLENT job of CAS. It has a long loiter time over target.
It can carry over 16,000 pounds of ordinance. It is highly maneuverable. It is tough. It is rugged and it is old.
It has been upgraded for newer weapons. The airframe itself is solid.
It works and it works damn well. I saw two prop jobs in the mid 80s that were prototypes to replace the A-10. Guess what?
We still have the A-10. An aircraft that the USAF high command did not want and wanted to get rid of.
 
There are only two reasons for the replacement of the A-10 with a prop job. One is so the Army can fly their own CAS missions. The second is maintnence. However, I doubt any prop job could keep the pilot as safe and still deliver ordinance on target, on time, with accuracy, and safely RTB with as much battle damage the A-10 can and has taken. Ask any hog driver.
The A-10 is highly maneuverable.
 
 
The F-16 and the F-15E both can do CAS. Both were adapted to the roll. The A-10 was made for air to mud.
The F-15E has the advantage of a backseater dedicated weapons officer. Unfortunately Fairchild never got to fully develope
such an airframe and only built something like 11 or 12 of them when the contract was lost.
 
The F-15 is showing it's age with the recent losses of airframe failure and recent groundings of them.
We need more than 187 (minus 1 that crashed) F-22s (let alone 50)  There is no room for losses for any reason
or downtime for maintence.
Nor will there be any spares for replacement. You go to war with what you have on hand. NOT what is down the road.
Just because Sec Def Gates does not believe there will not be any big wars ever again, does not mean they will not happen.
Without air superiority and CAS, the troops on the ground are going to be doing a lot of uneccessary dying and bleeding.
 
Everyone else is using the tech to their advantage, to try and get air superiority. We have it on hand now! SecDef Gates wants to throw it away and put people in the unemployment line and put our country at risk. HE wants to sacrifice speed and stealth when seconds count.
Yes we need to be prepared and to equip our troops with the best possible equipment. They put their asses on the line everyday for us. This is how this administration repays them? It won't be the first time our troops have to suffer such.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 3:47:33 AM

Everyone else is using the tech to their advantage, to try and get air superiority. We have it on hand now! SecDef Gates wants to throw it away and put people in the unemployment line and put our country at risk. HE wants to sacrifice speed and stealth when seconds count.


Count where and against WHAT? Who is he sacrificing it to?  
 
 
Yes we need to be prepared and to equip our troops with the best possible equipment. They put their asses on the line everyday for us. This is how this administration repays them? It won't be the first time our troops have to suffer such.

 There is a difference between the "best equipment" and "appropriate equipment". We want appropriate equipment and we aren't begging for F-22's. What we want are weapons systems and equipment we can use against threats that we are actually fighting. We aren't suffering, prior to this we were suffering. Focus on this will put us in position to win the wars we are fighting, get out of the readiness crisis and prepare us for the wars we will actually be fighting.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 9:58:45 AM
Those who long for peace, must be prepared for war. If you are going to fight any war then you better want to and be willing to fight to win. You win it with the best trained, equipped, and motivated troops.
 
The F-22 is designed and made for air superiority. The F-35 is not! The F-35 is a jack of all trades and master of none deal.
 
".....The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F-16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. ...."
 
Without the air superiority protection,  the F-35 is going to face severe and potentially catastophic combat losses. How much savings will the multimillion dollar plane and the pilot's life be worth then? Knowing theycould have been protected with a few more F-22s?
 
It is certainly a bad idea to forget about or dismiss any possible or potential large scale war scenarios.
Russia, China, Venezuela, NK, Iran, are all certainly gearing up. I am sure there are others. You and anyone else can disregard and deny those, and any other threat you may like. What if you are wrong? How many will die?  How much will it cost then? Will your alledged savings be worth it?
 
I seriously doubt the F-35 is going to be worth whatever alledged savings you are assuming there will be, in such a scenario.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/1/2009 11:03:32 AM






Are we in agreement yet that the Air Force still believes that 243 is the minimum requirement or do the Senators have it all wrong?







The Senators are not necessarily wrong. They are simply saying that they don't want to stop procurement of the F-22 until after the QDR. Of course, look at the timeline. Besides the QDR, what else happens in 2010 that the good Senators might be concerned about?

Funny how the *good senators* motives are political, but Gates and Obamas are all just pure military huh/. Many of these senators, of which have spent decades on the defense side of the equation as part of their job. Whereas Gates and Obama have what, couple years at most for Gates and 3 months for Obama? I'll take my chances with the politically motivated experienced *good senators*.  Pure laughable DA.


The OSD and USAF have made it clear that there isn't a requirement for more F-22's. Even if YOU or anyone else thinks otherwise, that is the official public policy on the issue. So it's quite literally up to Congress to make it legally binding to produce more. The real question is, how do they intend to pay for the 13 billion necessary? If they come up with a reasonable way to do that without taking away from other programs that is great. Otherwise, its not so great because 60 more Raptors will not in anyway put the USAF in a better position that it already is in terms of being able to do it's mission.




-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/1/2009 11:13:08 AM
Any enemy capable of defeating the combined might of the USAF with it's 187 Raptors would still defeat 243. Defeat of 187 Raptors means the enemy has either the technology or the strategy to overcome a mere 60 more. Think about that. At least the absurdly high number of 381 makes a tangible difference. 243 vs 187? No way. Not against likely opponents.  
 
Maybe you missed the other 3 posts where I mentioned that the difference in 60 is actually 25% of the total force. Try and complete the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns with 25% less from the start and tell me how it turns out. Could the Navy maintain its dominance of the seas with 4 less carriers? Its not always about a force of 243 vs enemy X, its about having a force structure to be able to maintain enough for combat, training, attrition, crashes, upgrades, and most of all readiness. Airframes especially one that is exposed to the stress that the Raptor is on a regular basis become worn out over 30 years, 25% more allows you to do more with less essentially, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.
 
First you counter everyone with the assertion that no opponent has the capability to overcome 187 Raptors and then you proclaim that anyone who could defeat 187 would defeat 243. There just isn't any reasoning with you, I truly believe and I said it once before, if Gates came back and said 243 was a reasonable compromise you would completely agree with him and this argument would instead be justification for 381. I am ok with 243 for the reasons stated over and over, so I would be more inclined to defend some of your opinions on this as I feel you have brought many strong points to the discussion. But every procurement should have a bare bones minimum to ensure a reasonable and maintainable force readiness, its not always how many you can bring to the fight all at once in any one particular conflict. Just to bring to light your argument about an enemy defeating 187, if that was the case the U.S. would likely not continue with such heavy losses and end the conflict. Wouldn't having 60 in reserve make a better case for the AF than 0?
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/1/2009 11:22:27 AM




The OSD and USAF have made it clear that there isn't a requirement for more F-22's



 



Incorrect statement, that is why I highlighted the paragraph. 






On April 16th,


these conclusions were reinforced by the comments made by General


Norton A. Schwartz after the F-22 procurement termination was


announced. General Schwartz stated that ?243 [Raptors] is the military


requirement.?



 



Someone might want to tell General Schwartz that his service has made it clear, because he didn't get the memo.










Wrong. He did. Stop spinning the story. If there was a requirement for 243, Gen Schwartz would be lobbying Congress, .

Like the General before him that got fired for it? Uh huh/ Or maybe getting sent to prision for violatiing direct orders from Gates verbally and in writing NOT to discuss anything right? Ya think maybe, just maybe those things MIGHT just have a small bit of influence as to why he is NOT lobbying for more DA? Just curious.


 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 12:53:52 PM
Those who long for peace, must be prepared for war. If you are going to fight any war then you better want to and be willing to fight to win. You win it with the best trained, equipped, and motivated troops.
 
The F-22 is designed and made for air superiority. The F-35 is not! The F-35 is a jack of all trades and master of none deal.
 
".....The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F-16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the F-22 Raptor. ...."
 
Without the air superiority protection,  the F-35 is going to face severe and potentially catastophic combat losses. How much savings will the multimillion dollar plane and the pilot's life be worth then? Knowing theycould have been protected with a few more F-22s?
 
It is certainly a bad idea to forget about or dismiss any possible or potential large scale war scenarios.
Russia, China, Venezuela, NK, Iran, are all certainly gearing up. I am sure there are others. You and anyone else can disregard and deny those, and any other threat you may like. What if you are wrong? How many will die?  How much will it cost then? Will your alledged savings be worth it?
 
I seriously doubt the F-35 is going to be worth whatever alledged savings you are assuming there will be, in such a scenario.
 
 
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