Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1 Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern By ANNE GEARAN AP Military Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs. Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan. The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year. The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces. Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut. Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended. Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back. Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents. "It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said. The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion. A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow... -DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Phaid       4/20/2009 6:08:47 PM
Never the less, I just showed you the cost savings with the Ford class. 40 new Raptors per ship if we replace the CVN-68 with CVN-78.
 
No, you showed potential cost savings if everything works as promised, based on promises made before development even started.  I can show you great brochures about DDG-1000 too, and we see where that wound up.
 
I didn't just use procurement cost. I used Unit lifetime cost. TOTALS. You haven't done that. Try it with the F-16 vs F-35 and see what you come up with.
 
I already did.  The F-16 costs less to acquire and less to operate. The picture gets worse over time for the F-35, not better.
 
But like I did, include the increases in capability. Phaid, you can't and we both know that. If anything, you should be lobbying for Ford Class because it could buy your 60 extra Raptors plus in just two hulls with spare change left over and a single pair of them give 500 to 600 strike sorties per day compared to 400 for two CVN-68s.
 
That's not a reasonable statement to make; you're talking about a (optimistic, projected) 5 billion dollar savings spread out over 50 years -- a span of time that exceeds the lifetime of any fighter aircraft. And note that even if those numbers turn out to be true, when you factor in the R&D expense and the increased acquisition cost, you have to buy three CVN-78s just to break even compared to sticking with the Nimitz design -- and that breaking even takes 50 years.
 
But, again, comparing the total life cycle costs of a carrier to a fighter plane is pretty meaningless given the difference in time scale.  And you can easily save $100 million per year (your 5 billion over 50 years) by doing intelligent things like operating fewer types of aircraft, closing a couple of bases, or any other basically noise-level increase in efficiency.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 6:23:18 PM

No, you showed potential cost savings if everything works as promised, based on promises made before development even started.  I can show you great brochures about DDG-1000 too, and we see where that wound up.

Half full half empty? You have no data to disprove the savings of the Ford and you have no data supporting additional F-22s. 
 

 

I already did.  The F-16 costs less to acquire and less to operate. The picture gets worse over time for the F-35, not better.
 
No, you didn't. No it isn't. Try to make this case and see for yourself. 


 

That's not a reasonable statement to make; you're talking about a (optimistic, projected) 5 billion dollar savings spread out over 50 years -- a span of time that exceeds the lifetime of any fighter aircraft. And note that even if those numbers turn out to be true, when you factor in the R&D expense and the increased acquisition cost, you have to buy three CVN-78s just to break even compared to sticking with the Nimitz design -- and that breaking even takes 50 years.


Thats a false statement. Fighter programs can last 50 years. Look at the F-15/16. Look at the BUFF. Aircraft programs last a long time.

 
But, again, comparing the total life cycle costs of a carrier to a fighter plane is pretty meaningless given the difference in time scale.  And you can easily save $100 million per year (your 5 billion over 50 years) by doing intelligent things like operating fewer types of aircraft, closing a couple of bases, or any other basically noise-level increase in efficiency.

Or you can save 13 billion right away by not buying irrelevant air dominance fighters that we have enough of given the realities of todays threats. Phaid, I'm still waiting for just one coherent argument that shows the current number to not be enough and that our ability to win a conflict is predicated on us having either 60 more airframes, the 400 total you want compared to the 187 we will get. Just one.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 6:46:35 PM
I already did.  The F-16 costs less to acquire and less to operate. The picture gets worse over time for the F-35, not better.
 
No, you didn't. No it isn't. Try to make this case and see for yourself. 

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it. From the latest GAO report on the JSF...:
The program also makes unprecedented demands for funding from the defense budget—an annual average of about $11 billion for the next two decades—and must compete with other defense and non-defense priorities for the shrinking federal discretionary dollar. Further, informed by more knowledge as the program progresses, DOD doubled its projection of JSF life-cycle operating and support costs compared to last year?s estimate and its expected cost per flight hour now exceeds that of the F-16 legacy fighter it is intended to replace. With almost 90 percent (in terms of dollars) of the acquisition program still ahead, it is important to address these challenges, effectively manage future risks, and move forward with a successful program that meets our and our allies? needs.
Beyond that, as I said before the F-35's flyaway cost is higher than the latest block F-16's, and that doesn't even start to factor in the massive R&D cost of the F-35 program which we still have to pay for.
 
That's not a reasonable statement to make; you're talking about a (optimistic, projected) 5 billion dollar savings spread out over 50 years -- a span of time that exceeds the lifetime of any fighter aircraft. And note that even if those numbers turn out to be true, when you factor in the R&D expense and the increased acquisition cost, you have to buy three CVN-78s just to break even compared to sticking with the Nimitz design -- and that breaking even takes 50 years.

Thats a false statement. Fighter programs can last 50 years. Look at the F-15/16. Look at the BUFF. Aircraft programs last a long time.

Saving $100 million a year (after the 4th ship) over 50 years does not in any way equate to buying 40 more Raptors in the next 2-5 years.
 
But, again, comparing the total life cycle costs of a carrier to a fighter plane is pretty meaningless given the difference in time scale.  And you can easily save $100 million per year (your 5 billion over 50 years) by doing intelligent things like operating fewer types of aircraft, closing a couple of bases, or any other basically noise-level increase in efficiency.

Or you can save 13 billion right away by not buying irrelevant air dominance fighters that we have enough of given the realities of todays threats. Phaid, I'm still waiting for just one coherent argument that shows the current number to not be enough and that our ability to win a conflict is predicated on us having either 60 more airframes, the 400 total you want compared to the 187 we will get. Just one.
 
There have been plenty of perfectly coherent arguments made in favor of both continuing to build 20 F-22s a year for 3 more years, and of ditching the F-35 and building a total of 400 F-22s and a fleet of F-16s instead.  The fact that you choose to ignore them in favor of appeals to authority based on policy statements from politicians does not make them any less valid.
 
It's interesting the way you keep changing the goal posts, though: when it's convenient (arguing for CVN-78, arguing for the JSF) we have to worry about near-peer competitors, generating high sortie ra
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy   4/20/2009 6:57:58 PM
The people of this country can have Gates removed from office if they disapprove of his methods/actions/etc.

 

Do you disagree or agree with this statement?
 
Uh No they can't....You like the US Constitution so much, just whip that bad boy out and point out to me where YOU, the PEOPLE, can replace ole' Bob Gates...I'll wait while you look.
 
Your oath of office is NICE, dude/dudette.  but you are ALSO bound to follow the lawful orders of your superiors.  And the presumption IS that your superiors orders ARE lawful...try dodging out of Iraq because its illegal, or Kosovo or Bosnia because you swore an oath to the United States, not the UN....So your ability to rely on the Constitution to bolster your position is limited.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/20/2009 7:10:55 PM

---JFKY---Uh No they can't....----

 

So the people cannot elect a man other than Obama who chooses to fire Gates?
 
That is ONE method.  There are many more.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that you have ZERO working knowledge of the United States Constitution boyo.

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Phaid   4/20/2009 7:28:38 PM

ditching the F-35

What's your plan for Navy if F-35 is culled?  Rely on Air Force though land bases may not be available, or send F-22 over long distances with tankerage?  Or is Navy/Marines fixed wing aviation unimportant to a Straits invasion scenario? (you I suspect would reject continuing to operate Harrier from short decks).  Curious.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 7:49:47 PM

ditching the F-35

What's your plan for Navy if F-35 is culled?  Rely on Air Force though land bases may not be available, or send F-22 over long distances with tankerage?  Or is Navy/Marines fixed wing aviation unimportant to a Straits invasion scenario? (you I suspect would reject continuing to operate Harrier from short decks).  Curious.


The Navy has a perfectly good late-4th-generation fighter in current production, and the F-35 doesn't really bring a whole lot to the table from a naval aviation perspective that the Super Hornet doesn't bring now or that a Block 3 version of the Super Hornet couldn't for a lot less money.
 
And yeah, I am not a big proponent of V/STOL from our short decks.  It's an expensive and pretty much pointless capability.  Marine fixed wing aviation mostly operates from CVNs and land bases, where V/STOL is useless.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 7:57:33 PM

 

It's interesting the way you keep changing the goal posts, though: when it's convenient (arguing for CVN-78, arguing for the JSF) we have to worry about near-peer competitors, generating high sortie rates, and having an all-VLO air fleet.  But when it comes to just specifically the F-22, near-peer competitors are irrelevant and all you can say is that it isn't useful against an insurgency.





No one is moving goal post. The F-35 is a lot cheaper than the F-16 Blk anything.

Its at least 4 times as effective in a2a compared to any legacy fighter, 8 times more effective in a2g missions. Its SEAD capable right off the factory floor. Its going to require less support from tankers. There is no way you can compare it to an F-16 and state with any truth that the cost to operate is going to be more. The GAO is stating an estimate. If it takes 4 more F-16s to be the equivalent of an F-35, which is more expensive? Is an F-16 Blk 60 .25 the cost of an F-35? Or how about .125 for at2? What happens to the billion already spent on R&D? That gets factored into your Blk 60 plan because WE LOSE EVERY DIME with a decision like this. And finally, what about allies? WHat about the USN and USMC? These are questions you cant answer Phaid and it completely invalidates your position. CVN-78 and F-35 can be used against all threats, not just high tech neer pear. Thats the point. Applicability across the board.

Ask yourself Phaid, how many F-35s would it take to conduct Osirak vs all the planes used. How many F-35 would it take to fly to Iran and back for the IDF/AF vs F-16I? There is a reason people want this plane so bad.
 
-DA


 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Hate to play gotcha but:   4/20/2009 8:14:20 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 8:19:39 PM

And yeah, I am not a big proponent of V/STOL from our short decks.  It's an expensive and pretty much pointless capability.  Marine fixed wing aviation mostly operates from CVNs and land bases, where V/STOL is useless.

It's not useless if the Runway gets peppered with cluster munitions delivered via BM. F-22's would not be able to even take off! Also think of the increase in power and missions a short deck carrier could perform. Got a problem in 5th Fleet AOR, say like a need to hit something WMD related in Pakistan proper in the event of Gov collapse. Your USMC pilots could lift off, tank and go for the goal line minus escort and probably not have to fight through AMRAAM armed Pak F-16s or J-7s. 
 
-DA
 

 

 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy