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       5/1/2009 1:00:11 PM

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.

 
STRAWMAN. You are saying that the USAF has a mission that normally requires(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) 400 F-15s or 100 F-22s to complete. So by your logic, we need 100 F-22s otherwise we will be deficient. I don't dispute the logic, I dispute the requirement.

I'm saying, the USAF has a mission whos requirements have changed  and that requires 300 F-15s and 75 F-22s.  In otherwords, NO MATTER WHAT PLATFORM MIX we chose, if this were 1989 vs 2009, I would say that we needed the 400/100 force. But since things have changed in 20 years and I don't see the same threats as before. The need for so many air superiority mission specific fighters has changed to a lower number. 

Does that make sense logically to you? 
 

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?


NO. I think the reserve should come out of the 187 Raptors. Under no reasonable scenario is there a power who can overcome our 187 + F-35 and Legacy USAF through 2025. That includes mishaps, attrition and combat losses.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 1:30:39 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

mustang22       5/1/2009 1:41:36 PM
Does that make sense logically to you? 
 
The logic makes sense, the numbers do not. You are taking the side of Gates and therefore feel that you do not need to analytically prove that 187 is deficient. I on the other hand have taken the side of the AF(whether or not you want to keep playing pointless vidoes) in which case I have countered your arguments, you just choose to disagree. Classic case of burden of proof only in this case you are the DA(no pun intended) and jury.
 
Like Beazz said, General Schwartz is choosing his words wisely.
 
I now challenge you to the burden of proving how in your mind 187 will meet any foreseeable challenges. I'm curious to see the threat level and how you think the AF would respond.  
 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 2:07:28 PM



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.



 



STRAWMAN. You are saying that the USAF has a mission that normally requires(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) 400 F-15s or 100 F-22s to complete. So by your logic, we need 100 F-22s otherwise we will be deficient. I don't dispute the logic, I dispute the requirement.




I'm saying, the USAF has a mission whos requirements have changed  and that requires 300 F-15s and 75 F-22s.  In otherwords, NO MATTER WHAT PLATFORM MIX we chose, if this were 1989 vs 2009, I would say that we needed the 400/100 force. But since things have changed in 20 years and I don't see the same threats as before. The need for so many air superiority mission specific fighters has changed to a lower number. 




Does that make sense logically to you? 



 



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?







NO. I think the reserve should come out of the 187 Raptors. Under no reasonable scenario is there a power who can overcome our 187 + F-35 and Legacy USAF through 2025. That includes mishaps, attrition and combat losses.




-DA 

I am not sure why my post was repeated. Be very careful in assuming anything. I can actually say that your logic does defiy me, Especially when we have multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives at stake and at potential risk. When it comes to air superiority, there are no second place finishers. The planes were designed to work together. They have two different jobs. Do not confuse the two. The F-35 may well be a champion as a multi role aircraft. ( This remains to be seen!) However it is not meant to be an air superiority aircraft. Does this make any sense to you? Granted with a good plane and the right pilot, There may well be some successes. I would not count or depend on those successes, without a large loss of aircraft and pilots.
So how many multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives are the believers in such, willing to put at risk and damage or harm, a weapon system that is designed to work together?  Without air superiority expect to lose pilots and aircraft. This is true, no matter the type of battle. It is the same as a fireteam on the ground, depending on the air support it is suppose to recieve. If it does not get the air support...chances are not very good for their successful outcome. Meanwhile after spening millions or more on developing and paying for such aircraft, would one not want them protected as best as possible and to work as efficiently as a team as possible? That is what both systems were designed to do. Work together. Each was specificaly desinged for a job. Separate them, what do you have?


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 2:16:03 PM
Actually you have not. I have said and it has been confirmed by the OSD and USAF CoS that the threat that required 187+ F-22's does not exist and there is no requirement for more. Moreover, I've posted text and video confirming that the scenarios that those 243 and 381 were based on have been revised. All of that is based on internal and external review. Just because public QDR data isn't available now, doesn't mean that the DoD hasn't conducted analysis. It's amazing that you suggest that because I know for a fact that such review has to be conducted prior to a decision like this. We, DoD personel, don't arbitrarily make decisions of task organization without first looking at the requirements. Thats not how it works. That would be like if my old SQD CDR told me to conduct an attack against enemy forces located at a certain known location without any regard to the enemy strength or any intel of the disposition of the enemy deliberately. That doesn't mean the CDR estimates are always right, but it is done prior to commiting of any forces. THis is no different and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant of procedure. I don't think you are ignorant. I do think political bias and misinterpretation of the situation apply. Remember, GWB and Rumsfeld/Gates felt this same way since 2002. The only objections came from the USAF who were obviously on the wrong path with regard to defense priorities as post 9/11 showed.
 
I don't have to prove anything. Rather, the F-22 community has to prove to us why they need more than they have. They cannot make that case without refering to outdates Cold War threat matrix. Their last hope was to paint the PRC as a boogey man but that didn't turn out to be the case. The PRC isn't seeking an expansionist confrontation with the United States and even if that were to change, it doesn't have the capability within the life cycle of the F-22.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 2:17:42 PM



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.



 



STRAWMAN. You are saying that the USAF has a mission that normally requires(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) 400 F-15s or 100 F-22s to complete. So by your logic, we need 100 F-22s otherwise we will be deficient. I don't dispute the logic, I dispute the requirement.




I'm saying, the USAF has a mission whos requirements have changed  and that requires 300 F-15s and 75 F-22s.  In otherwords, NO MATTER WHAT PLATFORM MIX we chose, if this were 1989 vs 2009, I would say that we needed the 400/100 force. But since things have changed in 20 years and I don't see the same threats as before. The need for so many air superiority mission specific fighters has changed to a lower number. 




Does that make sense logically to you? 



 



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?







NO. I think the reserve should come out of the 187 Raptors. Under no reasonable scenario is there a power who can overcome our 187 + F-35 and Legacy USAF through 2025. That includes mishaps, attrition and combat losses.




-DA 

I am not sure why my post was repeated. Be very careful in assuming anything. I can actually say that your logic does defiy me, Especially when we have multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives at stake and at potential risk. When it comes to air superiority, there are no second place finishers. The planes were designed to work together. They have two different jobs. Do not confuse the two. The F-35 may well be a champion as a multi role aircraft. ( This remains to be seen!) However it is not meant to be an air superiority aircraft. Does this make any sense to you? Granted with a good plane and the right pilot, There may well be some successes. I would not count or depend on those successes, without a large loss of aircraft and pilots.
So how many multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives are the believers in such, willing to put at risk and damage or harm, a weapon system that is designed to work together?  Without air superiority expect to lose pilots and aircraft. This is true, no matter the type of battle. It is the same as a fireteam on the ground, depending on the air support it is suppose to recieve. If it does not get the air support...chances are not very good for their successful outcome. Meanwhile after spening millions or more on developing and paying for such aircraft, would one not want them protected as best as possible and to work as efficiently as a team as possible? That is what both systems were designed to do. Work together. Each was specificaly desinged for a job. Separate them, what do you have?


 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 2:27:47 PM



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.



 



STRAWMAN. You are saying that the USAF has a mission that normally requires(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) 400 F-15s or 100 F-22s to complete. So by your logic, we need 100 F-22s otherwise we will be deficient. I don't dispute the logic, I dispute the requirement.




I'm saying, the USAF has a mission whos requirements have changed  and that requires 300 F-15s and 75 F-22s.  In otherwords, NO MATTER WHAT PLATFORM MIX we chose, if this were 1989 vs 2009, I would say that we needed the 400/100 force. But since things have changed in 20 years and I don't see the same threats as before. The need for so many air superiority mission specific fighters has changed to a lower number. 




Does that make sense logically to you? 



 



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?







NO. I think the reserve should come out of the 187 Raptors. Under no reasonable scenario is there a power who can overcome our 187 + F-35 and Legacy USAF through 2025. That includes mishaps, attrition and combat losses.




-DA 

I am not sure why my post was repeated. Be very careful in assuming anything. I can actually say that your logic does defiy me, Especially when we have multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives at stake and at potential risk. When it comes to air superiority, there are no second place finishers. The planes were designed to work together. They have two different jobs. Do not confuse the two. The F-35 may well be a champion as a multi role aircraft. ( This remains to be seen!) However it is not meant to be an air superiority aircraft. Does this make any sense to you? Granted with a good plane and the right pilot, There may well be some successes. I would not count or depend on those successes, without a large loss of aircraft and pilots.
So how many multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives are the believers in such, willing to put at risk and damage or harm, a weapon system that is designed to work together?  Without air superiority expect to lose pilots and aircraft. This is true, no matter the type of battle. It is the same as a fireteam on the ground, depending on the air support it is suppose to recieve. If it does not get the air support...chances are not very good for their successful outcome. Meanwhile after spening millions or more on developing and paying for such aircraft, would one not want them protected as best as possible and to work as efficiently as a team as possible? That is what both systems were designed to do. Work together. Each was specificaly desinged for a job. Separate them, what do you have?


 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/1/2009 2:48:11 PM
Former USAFSP,
 
Don't click on the "refresh" button after you've posted a comment.  It will repost your comment.  After posting, do something else like backing out of the thread and then clicking back into it, or whatever, so that then if you refresh it won't repost.
 
Don't sweat it, every first-time poster seems to discover this the hard way!  And thanks for keeping the bases I used to work at secure.  :-)
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 3:01:24 PM


So how many multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives are the believers in such, willing to put at risk and damage or harm, a weapon system that is designed to work together?  


STRAWMAN. There F-22 and F-35 will work together as I've stated constantly over and over.


Without air superiority expect to lose pilots and aircraft. This is true, no matter the type of battle. It is the same as a fireteam on the ground, depending on the air support it is suppose to recieve. If it does not get the air support...chances are not very good for their successful outcome. 


Again, what exactly does this have to do with what I said? I never disagreed with or brought anything like this up???


Meanwhile after spening millions or more on developing and paying for such aircraft, would one not want them protected as best as possible and to work as efficiently as a team as possible? That is what both systems were designed to do. Work together. Each was specificaly desinged for a job. Separate them, what do you have?


Another STRAWMAN. At what point did I say separate them? You know, the pro-F-22 crowd on this site are doing an absolutely terrible job of debating on point and with relevant information. I mean, by any measure this most recent post is a logical fallacy. I mean, F-22 fans you need to be able to show more than just like admiration for the airplane. I like it too. 


When you come in here and say, Gates did no analysis, you're wrong. The OSD has been doing that since 2002 with regard to F-22's. You may say the USAF didn't ALWAYS agree. You would be right. But that's CHANGED. The USAF like the DoD has had 8 years of a reality check and it has learned that it was ill prepared for the wars it has to fight and will fight and was preparing for the war it never fought but already won during the Cold War. In a last ditch effort to keep relevant, it tried to fit the PRC into the USSR mold without regard to the fact that the PRC and USSR may have some similarities RE: communism. But the directions of the DEAD USSR and living viable PRC are different and that the USA and PRC are intimately linked for AT LEAST the next 2 decades and are not likely to wage self destructive wars on each other. Moreover, if they did, the PRC cannot survive such a war and remain intact as is. You cannot wage an offensive war when you can't ensure the continuity of Government, integrity of the state, security of your logistics and solid economic foundation. Take a look at the PRC life blood. Its their sea trade and exports. Without that, the peasants who build the electronics we use to post here and the clothes on our back are going to starve and riot. There are a hell of a lot more of them than there are PLA. The PRC will implode and then explode under such conditions. They cannot even resort to a mutual exchange of nuclear weapons. WHATEVER they do to the USA we can do back many times over and survive. Their demise is all but guaranteed. For the PRC threat models to work, you need mutually assured destruction at the conventional and nuclear levels. They don't have that.


EVERYBODY else is a joke. Even the Russians can barely muster enough troops to invade neighbors. Iran and North Korea are jokes at the platform level and even systems level in terms of conventional warfare.


It's not like, we have are doubling the use of the Raptors because we have 187. Raptors= 187 = Supply. Demand = < 187. In order for you to have a valid point, Demand must be = > 187 and it is not. This has nothing to do with how cool the F-22 is, it's capability or that its the "Most Dominant Fighter". This has to do with how much of that is actually required to do the job.


-DA








 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 3:06:28 PM



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.



 



STRAWMAN. You are saying that the USAF has a mission that normally requires(HYPOTHETICAL NUMBERS FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) 400 F-15s or 100 F-22s to complete. So by your logic, we need 100 F-22s otherwise we will be deficient. I don't dispute the logic, I dispute the requirement.




I'm saying, the USAF has a mission whos requirements have changed  and that requires 300 F-15s and 75 F-22s.  In otherwords, NO MATTER WHAT PLATFORM MIX we chose, if this were 1989 vs 2009, I would say that we needed the 400/100 force. But since things have changed in 20 years and I don't see the same threats as before. The need for so many air superiority mission specific fighters has changed to a lower number. 




Does that make sense logically to you? 



 



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?







NO. I think the reserve should come out of the 187 Raptors. Under no reasonable scenario is there a power who can overcome our 187 + F-35 and Legacy USAF through 2025. That includes mishaps, attrition and combat losses.




-DA 

I am not sure why my post was repeated. Be very careful in assuming anything. I can actually say that your logic does defiy me, Especially when we have multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives at stake and at potential risk. When it comes to air superiority, there are no second place finishers. The planes were designed to work together. They have two different jobs. Do not confuse the two. The F-35 may well be a champion as a multi role aircraft. ( This remains to be seen!) However it is not meant to be an air superiority aircraft. Does this make any sense to you? Granted with a good plane and the right pilot, There may well be some successes. I would not count or depend on those successes, without a large loss of aircraft and pilots.
So how many multi-million dollar aircraft and pilots lives are the believers in such, willing to put at risk and damage or harm, a weapon system that is designed to work together?  Without air superiority expect to lose pilots and aircraft. This is true, no matter the type of battle. It is the same as a fireteam on the ground, depending on the air support it is suppose to recieve. If it does not get the air support...chances are not very good for their successful outcome. Meanwhile after spening millions or more on developing and paying for such aircraft, would one not want them protected as best as possible and to work as efficiently as a team as possible? That is what both systems were designed to do. Work together. Each was specificaly desinged for a job. Separate them, what do you have?


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 3:06:45 PM

Former USAFSP,

 

Don't click on the "refresh" button after you've posted a comment.  It will repost your comment.  After posting, do something else like backing out of the thread and then clicking back into it, or whatever, so that then if you refresh it won't repost.

 

Don't sweat it, every first-time poster seems to discover this the hard way!  And thanks for keeping the bases I used to work at secure.  :-)

 

Ditto, especially if you ever worked LSA...;) 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Former USAFSP       5/1/2009 3:23:54 PM

Former USAFSP,

 

Don't click on the "refresh" button after you've posted a comment.  It will repost your comment.  After posting, do something else like backing out of the thread and then clicking back into it, or whatever, so that then if you refresh it won't repost.

 

Don't sweat it, every first-time poster seems to discover this the hard way!  And thanks for keeping the bases I used to work at secure.  :-)

 Many thanks!!!  My humblest apologies and your help in my being a newbie.  You are most welcome! For without people doing the job diligently and being forever vigiliant, we would have chaos or worse. I know many did not appreciate our job, but we did what we had to do. Nothing like the pilots job, but we always made sure your bird was secure to caarry on your mission and it was safe to RTB.
When I was in we got training and got to qualify with all organic weapn systems. From SAC to USAFE to TAC... to any other command.  This does not mean to say anything about any other ABGD roles or escorts, or any other role the SPs had dealings with. We are the grunts to the USAF. Air power?  CAS? You bet your sweet bippy we depend on it in many places people never hear about.



 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/1/2009 3:41:58 PM
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.?
 
Darth,
 
With all due respect how many times do I have to post this? The AF does not agree and is merely pacifying DOD, any resistance will be met with severe consequences as we have already witnessed. The threat has been reevaluated umpteen times since 2002 and the AF stood firm at 381 until both Generals were fried last year. Since then Schwartz and his team compromised on the minimum number they thought would get the job done to meet the changing threat environment. Gates just doesn't want to hear it period. General Schwartz has made it publicly known that the military requirement according to his staff is 243 and that is fact as the April 16 date shows us, he just wont push the issue any longer. I don't understand how you can keep disputing this, those videos mean squat to me, any boss can go public and not have their subordinates throw them to the wolves if they want to keep their jobs, it happens every day.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 5:09:01 PM

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.?

 

Darth,

 

With all due respect how many times do I have to post this? The AF does not agree and is merely pacifying DOD, any resistance will be met with severe consequences as we have already witnessed. The threat has been reevaluated umpteen times since 2002 and the AF stood firm at 381 until both Generals were fried last year. Since then Schwartz and his team compromised on the minimum number they thought would get the job done to meet the changing threat environment. Gates just doesn't want to hear it period. General Schwartz has made it publicly known that the military requirement according to his staff is 243 and that is fact as the April 16 date shows us, he just wont push the issue any longer. I don't understand how you can keep disputing this, those videos mean squat to me, any boss can go public and not have their subordinates throw them to the wolves if they want to keep their jobs, it happens every day.

Wrong. HE DID NOT. He said it was a moderate risk force.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/1/2009 5:27:18 PM



Wrong. HE DID NOT. He said it was a moderate risk force.


-DA

No, he very clearly stated that 243 is the military requirement:
Despite defense Secretary Robert Gates? announcement earlier this month that 187 F-22s is a sufficient inventory for the Air Force—and his claim that the service did not make a case for more—Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said yesterday that ?243 is the military requirement? for the advanced fifth-generation fighter. Speaking at a National Aeronautic Association luncheon in Washington, D.C., Schwartz acknowledged that 243 Raptors would have been a ?moderate-risk? inventory, while 381 F-22s, the long-standing requirement prior to this year, was a low-risk number.

 
 
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