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
mustang22       5/1/2009 5:45:53 PM

We can continue this as long as you have a stomach for it Darth, your opinion cannot change fact. As Phaid was nice enough to provide yet another link, your statement is only half true. He did in fact say the military requirement is 243, and yes that would indicate a moderate risk force. I'm ready when you are, lets hear it.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Mustang22 read the highlights. My comments in red   5/1/2009 6:10:13 PM

This is an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post on April 13, 2009, written by Secretary Donley and General Schwartz.

The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.

The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground attack capability.

We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives — all balanced within the context of available resources.

NOTE THAT A HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT WAS DONE 
 
We are often asked: How many F-22s does the Air Force need? The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.

CONTINUOUSLY MAKING ASSESSMENTS
 
These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.

183 WAS NOT SIMPLY AN ISSUE OF BUDGET AND COST BUT ALSO NEED/REQUIREMENTS

 
Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

 THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL ELEMENTS OF YOUR POST DIRECTLY REBUKED. NOTE THAT HE ACKNOWLEDGES THE USAF WASN'T USING THE SAME WARFIGHTING ASSUMPTIONS IT IS NOW. AS TIME HAS PROGRESSED AND TRENDS ARE OBSERVED THE REQUIREMENT CONTINUED TO DECLINE FROM 750-381-243 AND NOW 183 + 4 EXTRA. THINGS CHANGED. CONTINUE READING BELOW.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

WE HAVE BEEN AT WAR SINCE 9/11. WE ARENT DOING AIRFRAME GOBBLING NO-FLY-ZONE PATROLS WHICH FACTORED INTO THE USAGE CALCULATIONS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO 381 AND 243 AIRFRAMES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE USE F-22s WOULD GET UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS. ALSO, WE'VE LEARNED THAT THE ENEMY DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY CHALLENGE US FOR THE AIR AND SHORT OF RUSSIA/INDIA/PRC, REGIONAL THREATS DON'T EVEN TRY TO CONTEST THE AIR WITH FIGHTERS BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S FUTILE. HOW MANY AIR TO AIR VICTORIES IN ODS, OAF, OEF AND OIF VS MANNED ENEMY FIGHTERS? REVIEW AND SEE FOR YOURSELF THAT IT GETS PROGRESSIVELY LOWER TO ZERO AS THE LESSONS WERE TAUGHT WELL IN THE 1990'S. NEW AIR THREATS INCLUDE EXAMPLES SUCH AS THESE WHICH CANNOT BE DEALT WITH BY TRADITIONAL MEANS AS WAS DEMONSTRATED BY IRAQ, NORTH KOREA AND AQ...

 

 

 


 
ALL CAPABLE OF AVOIDING THE F-22 CAPABILITY RATHER THAN DIRECT CONFRONTATION
 
This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

THE USAF HAS OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH HAVE INCREASED IN IMPORTANCE AND DEMAND WHILE AIR SUPERIORITY HAS DECREASE IN DEMAND. MUCH OF THIS HAS BEEN NEGLECTED IN THE PAST AND COST LIVES.
 
It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama?s fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department?s broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

AGAIN, ANOTHER REFERENCE TO A DIRECT ASSESSMENT
 
The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

THEY DID AN ANALYSIS WHICH SHOWED LITTLE RISK AS OPPOSED TO THE CERTAIN RISK OF A 13 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET SHORTFALL. OH AND USAFSP, NOTE F-22 AND F-35 WORKING TOGETHER.

Much rides on the F-35?s success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

F-35 SUCCESS IS CRITICAL YET PEOPLE CONTINUOUSLY BRUSH IT OFF AND WANT TO CUT IT FOR A FIGHTER THAT ISN'T CRITICAL BEYOND 187. 

We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.

AGAIN, AFTER ALL THE ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION, AN INFORMED RISK MANAGED DECISION WAS MADE TO NOT RECOMMEND MORE BASED ON EXPERIENCE AND REQUIREMENTS. MOREOVER, THE F-22 HAS LONG TERM VIABILITY
 

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military?s arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.

Michael Donley is secretary of the Air Force. Gen. Norton Schwartz is chief of staff of the Air Force.

LIKE I SAID, WE NEED THE F-22, NOT MORE THAN 187, AND THE TIME HAS COME TO MOVE ON. DIRECTLY FROM THE USAF HIGHEST LEVELS. NO POST HAS HELD A CANDLE TO REFUTE THIS.THIS DOES NOT READ LIKE THE STATEMENT OF MEN UNDER COERCION OR WHO AREN'T IN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR OWN, NOT GATES, BUT THEIR OWN DECISIONS.




This should in a rational objective world, put to rest any further suggestions that the USAF senior leadership doesn't agree with 187 as the requirement or that no analysis was done to support it. The burden is on the pro F-22 side to state why they think the analysis and numbers are wrong. All who have tried thus far, fail.

-DA 

 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/1/2009 6:38:49 PM
I guess General Schwartz changed his mind during the interview on the 16th, which happens to be 3 days after the written comments that Gates provided for the AF to sign their names to.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 6:53:52 PM

I guess General Schwartz changed his mind during the interview on the 16th, which happens to be 3 days after the written comments that Gates provided for the AF to sign their names to.

No, what happened is that the people who reported that did a very poor job of presenting the comments in context. The USAF CoS told us very clearly that, the assessment that came up with the 243 F-22 number is different from the current assessment that calls for 183 + 4. The latest assessment as I elaborated on is the correct and most relevant. He also said that there is no money to fund the 60 more that the older assessment called for. Finally, he said it's time to move on. And you are spinning and twisting the facts by saying SecDef Gates provided opinions for these men to sign on to. That is not how this works. If they were being told to do things they were opposed to they would have resigned. Phaid and yourself are misinterpreting the interview because of a biased or bad writer.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/1/2009 7:16:45 PM
DA,
 
The sun will rise tomorrow.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 7:23:52 PM

I am not trying just to troll or start a flame war. You made the statement.

The US could field a ucav capable of doing anything a manned fighter can do in 5 years.
 
You miss interpreted it. A UCAV capable of doing any mission a manned fighter does. SEAD/DEAD, OCA, DCA, Air Interdiction, CAS and Non-Traditional ISR. Thats not the same as replacing a specific fighter. People should ask for clarification rather than jump to conclusions.**
 
**Not yelling just playing with fonts.

UCavs are cheaper than the F22 no?
Why use an F22 (a manned fighter) and risk a pilots life plus the added expense when an unmanned fighter will do?

There are a lot of reasons for now. It would not be wise at this early stage to become totally reliant on any one method.


 

Seriously, this was your statement wasn't it? Semantics maybe, maybe you did not mean it quite that way...but you made the statement.
You did also say we need the F22. But you do see my point about your statement. It is clear and does give a clear implication.


Again, you misunderstood me. In the future just say, hey what do you mean by that? Then I'll explain in detail. This is a conversation. The person who falsely alleged that I said that a UCAV will replace F-22's in 5 years had an agenda and wasn't interested in dialogue but rather to pick a fight. Not once have I agree with Phaid or Mustang yet there is no vitriol? Whats the common thread here? Why no vitriol in the last few post? I'm still here. Mustang and Phaid are here. The suggestion that I said anything about a UCAV replacing Raptors was an attempt to derail the thread and nothing more because I obviously didn't say that. Nor would I. I know full well what is possible and what is not.

 

I am not trying to attack you. I have read your posts on this and other sites and have learned a great deal from you. The quality, tone, and direction you have taken in the last few months has changed. There may be a point of no return that some posters have reached regarding each others credibility and intentions. That sucks for those of us (like me) that REALLY enjoy reading your and other posters opinions.

You DA have been unreasonable and so have a few others-- but you most of all.
I sincerely hope you see it and correct it.
Good Luck and thank you for your service to this country

 
The truth is not reasonable. It just is. I am not changing my mind because I know that I am right. I also know the alternatives suggested by others are not viable and in most cases come from misunderstanding of the situation. I'm always going to preach the truth as I understand it. I realize not everyone will agree. But no one will be able to counter on this issue with unequivocal evidence to the contrary. AT BEST, you will get people saying such foolishness as Gates made them do it or Money was the only reason. If the USAF had an extra 13 billion, they would have still been better off using it on something else.

Thanks for the thanks...;)

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/1/2009 7:24:38 PM



I guess General Schwartz changed his mind during the interview on the 16th, which happens to be 3 days after the written comments that Gates provided for the AF to sign their names to.



No, what happened is that the people who reported that did a very poor job of presenting the comments in context. The USAF CoS told us very clearly that, the assessment that came up with the 243 F-22 number is different from the current assessment that calls for 183 + 4. The latest assessment as I elaborated on is the correct and most relevant. He also said that there is no money to fund the 60 more that the older assessment called for. Finally, he said it's time to move on. And you are spinning and twisting the facts by saying SecDef Gates provided opinions for these men to sign on to. That is not how this works. If they were being told to do things they were opposed to they would have resigned. Phaid and yourself are misinterpreting the interview because of a biased or bad writer.




-DA
 
Dude, I already showed you, and you of course ignored, the FACT that Gates forced the Air Force leadership to sign a gag order about these decisions.  The simple FACT is that these are UNILATERAL decisions on the part of the Rumsfeld-populated DoD, NOT of the Air Force and NOT in the best interests of our warfighting capability.
 
You are simply irrationally toeing the DoD line and ignoring MOUNTAINS of evidence that everyone has provided that clearly show that 1) nobody in their right mind in the military agrees with capping the F-22 at 187 and 2) relying on the F-35 as the mainstay 5th generation airplane is a foolish gamble that is already showing clear signs (in case you read the link, the outcome was not favorable) of being in serious trouble.
 
It's really sad and kind of frightening actually to watch you twist through these logical gymnastics in order to justify spending money on ANY program except the F-22 -- regardless of the actual capability or the actual cost effectiveness of those procurements.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 7:40:49 PM

Dude, I already showed you, and you of course ignored, the FACT that Gates forced the Air Force leadership to sign a gag order about these decisions.  The simple FACT is that these are UNILATERAL decisions on the part of the Rumsfeld-populated DoD, NOT of the Air Force and NOT in the best interests of our warfighting capability.

Already debunked. The suggestion was to ensure the integrity of the process. The senior leadership came forward and made their decisions clear and supported it WHICH I SHOWED YOU.

You are simply irrationally toeing the DoD line and ignoring MOUNTAINS of evidence that everyone has provided that clearly show that 1) nobody in their right mind in the military agrees with capping the F-22 at 187 and 2) relying on the F-35 as the mainstay 5th generation airplane is a foolish gamble that is already showing clear signs (in case you read the link, the outcome was not favorable) of being in serious trouble.

Wrong. Look who agrees...
   Also, look what they think about the F-35 being in trouble...

 

It's really sad and kind of frightening actually to watch you twist through these logical gymnastics in order to justify spending money on ANY program except the F-22 -- regardless of the actual capability or the actual cost effectiveness of those procurements.

No what's sad is I can post the direct words of the decision makers AND my own commentary to completely and utterly rebuke anything you have said so far to the point that an attorney would agree that if we were arguing a legal issue you would lose based on hearsay and speculation about things you cannot prove. But because you are so biased toward ONE platform you can't see that entire range of other things that have eclipsed the F-22 beyond 187 in importance.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/1/2009 7:45:45 PM
Oh yeah before I forget...lol


Many politicians believe it would probably be a wise move for the Dutch Government to postpone the decision or even cancel the purchase of the F35 all together. The plane is not only plagued by technical problems but also by cost overruns. One of the main problems is that the F-35 is having serious difficulties getting rid of excess heat. This will require a redesign. A look at the history of the aircraft also shows several problems that already required some redesign, including airframe fatigue problems. It is also strange that the Netherlands is gambling on the purchase of a basically untested US fighter aircraft when there are proven high quality EU made stealth fighter aircraft like the Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter available. It is also interesting that it is once again a purchase from Lockheed that is causing an upheaval in Dutch political circles. Back in the late 1970?s Prince Bernhard, husband of the former queen Juliana, had pocketed a million-dollar bribe for ensuring that the Dutch government would choose Lockheed planes for their military needs. Bernard at that time was the Chief of the combined Dutch military forces, which included the air force.


You do realize, as your supporting evidence against my informed analysis, official USAF and OSD statements. You posted a link to an EU-centric article that refers to the RAFALE, GRIPEN AND TYHOON AS STEALTH FIGHTERS...lol.

I'd consider my source if I were you. I'm just sayin'...;)

 
-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid Rely   5/1/2009 7:54:11 PM
Oh, and since when is Rafale, no exports, limited a2g capability, more expensive and produced in less quantity than F-22, "PROVEN". Also, when being compared to F-35, Typhoon isn't even fully a2g capable yet, has no AESA and Gripen NG isn't operational. Proven? Are you kidding me?

-DA 


REF:
Last paragraph alleges that the ECD are "Proven".  None of these aircraft have even demonstrated the capability of an F/A-18C much less the F-35's requirements.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/1/2009 7:59:49 PM

You do realize, as your supporting evidence against my informed analysis, official USAF and OSD statements. You posted a link to an EU-centric article that refers to the RAFALE, GRIPEN AND TYHOON AS STEALTH FIGHTERS...lol.

I'd consider my source if I were you. I'm just sayin'...;)
 
Oh, I am considering my source.
 
The source is Europeans.  They don't give an oink what WE think about the F-35 vs ECDs.  What matters is what THEY think.  And clearly, right now THEY don't see that the F-35 is worth is.
 
Just sayin'.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    phaid Reply   5/1/2009 8:07:16 PM
OK so then why not post something from Kopp and ELP as well? Your site is non-military specific. Compare this to the opinions of the OSD and USAF CoS? No thanks. Your source is biased and not credible...




EU-DIGEST - AN ONLINE EUROPE HOUSE ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION 

EU-Digest is a daily on-line publication edited and distributed for free by

EUROPE-HOUSE.  EU-Digest provides news highlights and links to European related news reports on economic, social and political issues. Editor of EU-Digest is Rick Morren, CEO of Europe House, Inc.

EUROPE HOUSE CAPABILITY STATEMENT

Europe House is a non-profit corporation, fostering a better global understanding of the European Union, and its member states, through business ventures, trade missions, educational, business and technological exchanges, internet applications, the media, conferences, seminars, sports, cultural activities and exchange programs. Europe House actively seeks to promote European solidarity on issues of common interest to its citizens, and the further strengthening of European Unity, through an international network of partner organizations and volunteers.

 

WHY EUROPE HOUSE 

The European Union         

 

The European Union--previously known as the European Community--is an institutional framework for the construction of a united Europe. It was created after World War II to unite the nations of Europe economically so another war among them would be unthinkable. Presently twenty five countries are members of the European Union, and some 460 million people share the common institutions and policies that have brought an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity to Western Europe.

 

The EU ? a Major Global Business Partner

 

European integration was launched after World War II with the active support of the United States, and the Atlantic partnership has remained firm ever since. As President Clinton said in May 1995, echoing several US Presidents before him: "The United States partnership with Europe is a powerful, positive force." 

As one of the world's largest trading powers, and as a leading economic partner for most countries, the EU is a major player on the world scene. Its scope for action extends increasingly beyond trade and economic questions. More than 130 countries maintain diplomatic relations with the EU, and the EU has over 100 delegations around the world. The United States and Europe are economically interdependent. Some 40 percent of US investment abroad goes to the EU, as do some 20 percent of US exports, making the EU one of the top two markets for the US. The EU-25 is the source of some 58 percent of foreign investment in the US. Up to 3.5 million highly paid jobs in the US are due to EU investment and a permanent dialogue is carried on between the EU and the US on matters of mutual concern through regular consultations at the highest official levels. 

EUROPE HOUSE ? We want to be your Partner

Europe House founding members are an active force in promoting and participating in the process of European integration. Europe House is a reliable and knowledgeable partner for anyone seeking to connect with, or do business in Europe. Europe House maintains a permanent presence in Europe, and is affiliated with numerous local and regional Public, and Private sector organizations.

EUROPE HOUSE ACTIVITIES:  

·         Supporting educational, business, and cultural events focusing on Europe.

·         Developing a European Business directory

·         Monthly networking meetings

·         Conferences and Seminars related to a variety of issues in relation to Europe

·         Hosting trade missions from Europe

·         Organizing trade missions to Europe

·         Advocating, and promoting EU issues

  • Editing and producing news reports, including EU-Digest, with news highlights and links to European related news reports on economic, social and political issues

EUROPE HOUSE MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS:  

·         Accurate information on Europe

·         Networking opportunities

·         Referrals

·         Listing in the membership directory

·         Listing on the Europe House website *

·         Opportunity to meet people with an interest or knowledge about Europe in a social or professional setting

·         Support in locating potential European business partners

·         Receive regular electronic non-traditional news updates

·         Ability to join those who speak with one voice on Europe

Only for corporate members

THE EU-DIGEST  EDITORIAL POLICY

  • To encourage a world, where globalization is not only about homogeneity and standardization, but also about diversity and cooperation.
  • To cover local events that are ignored or poorly covered by the corporate media.
  • To provide edited print stories, audio and video of the above on the Internet for independent media contacts, thought leaders, and the general public
  • To favor a strict separation between state and religion.
  • To oppose all radical religious movements and violence associated with these movements.
  • To support democratically elected governments
  • To oppose war as a solution for solving conflicts
  • To facilitate the networking and coordination of like minded individuals for the coverage of local events as well as the gathering of information about events to be covered
  • To provide links to a broad spectrum of news resources, including the alternative media, activist, and research groups
  • To seek out and provide coverage on the global reason's for social, economic, and environmental problems, as seen from the perspective of those that are most affected by these problems
  • To encourage, facilitate, and support the creation of a global system of independent newsgathering organizations
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/1/2009 8:34:55 PM
 What matters is what THEY think.  And clearly, right now THEY don't see that the F-35 is worth is.
I'd have to dispute this.

Which of the existing 8/13 have inidcated a desire to not get JSF based on VFM?  In Brusseels 2 months ago every one of the military and civilian partners re-affirmed their interest in the platform.  3 have to decide this year and I don't see any of them chaging their mind.  The Norwegians are considering deferring, but not cancelling

Australia is changing it's interim order from 100 to 72+28 in a staged tranche - but thats because we have no intention of keeping the SuperHornets.  Even the Growlers are regarded  by NACC as being replaceable by the JSF and they're fundamentally dedicated ewarfare assets.

At this stage even the fitting of growler kits to a flight of Shornets is no guarantee that they will actually get a full makeover.  The more we learn about the ewarfare  and sensing ability of the platform the increasing likelihood that the growler harness will be an exercise in tactical prudence, but not an exercise in tactical necessity.

As for the euros, again, I can only state that there is nothing in the serving uniform  area or from the suits that shows reluctance on purchase due to VFM.  There's lots of amatuer hour commentary from bloggers and some in every nations press gallery - but when these people fail to even demonstrate basic comprehension of doctrine and fitout - then their credibility is a nonsense.  Fluid dialogue doesn't always demonstrate coherent thought.  The Kopp/ELP/ and  Jensens of australia exist in other countries - and to date I've yet to see any construct a meaningful and worthy argument. (Geez louise, look at the stuff coming out of Norway for an example of Koppism at its finest - and thats because they're conflicted with ex uniforms who want a Scandinavian mini NATO established and think that the Gripen is the solution.  These are the same people arguing that Finland should provide land forces for Sweden, Norway and Finland, that Norway should provide maritime assets to protect all partners maritime interests and that Sweden should provide the regional airforce.  All of this is based around the "Scandinavia Strong" mantra and some yet to be reasonably articulated cost modelling on force efficiency) 

So, my view, is when the arguments about platform or capability relevance  are attached to other countries as examples, then the context has to be clearly stated.

Tactically, doctrinally, strategically we're not comparing apples with apples.

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/1/2009 8:37:40 PM
erk, ignore the prev typos please...  am typing english like a Bruge...
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    qualifier   5/1/2009 9:01:44 PM
 There's lots of amatuer hour commentary from bloggers and some in every nations press gallery - but when these people fail to even demonstrate basic comprehension of doctrine and fitout - then their credibility is a nonsense.  Fluid dialogue doesn't always demonstrate coherent thought.  The Kopp/ELP/ and  Jensens of australia exist in other countries - and to date I've yet to see any construct a meaningful and worthy argument. 

just to qualify, my intent is to not diss bloggers in general, as there are some excellent ones about.  eg Galrahn and Salamander are persistently excellent maritime community blogs with credible owners and with real links into the communities that they discuss.  generally, I'd have to say that the aviation community is less than well served because they don't demonstrate rigour and are self righteous in their own agendas.  eg a variation of Carlton/Sparks/Meyers et-al....   IMO, people who can't count hard points, understand wing loadings or even read FMS notices properly should find another outlet to feel important about themselves. :)  But, I'm also becoming far less tolerant as I get older.....
 
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