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       4/21/2009 12:55:21 PM

Phaid,

If you think F-16 blk 60 is a good idea. Why not go with the current 187 F-22's, Upgrade the Golden Eagle fleet we will keep to Silent Eagle configuration, and purchase the F-35 as planned so as not to forfeit one of the greatest weapons we have which is our ability to form and fight within coalitions and allow us to have a predominantly 5th Gen fighter force the majority of which are capable of fighting low and high end of the spectrum of conflict?

Notwithstanding the fact that you can't upgrade the F-15Cs into F-15SEs (you'd have to completely rebuild the fuselage to retrofit the canted tails) I'm not sure what my liking the Block 60 has to do with the F-15SE.  As I've already stated, my contention is that a high-low mix is what is needed, where the dedicated air superiority aircraft are the high end.  The F-15SE (even new build ones) does not qualify as "the high end" in that scenario.
 
The argument that we can't form and fight within coalitions without the F-35 is bunk.  We do it just fine now, thanks, and it's only going to get easier as everyone is standardizing on compatible network protocols.
 
And again with that contradiction: if we're going to drop the F-22 because we don't need a small number of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum, why then do we want to spend nearly as much per-aircraft in order to get a whole fleet of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum?
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/21/2009 1:08:11 PM

Mobile missiles killed more Americans during GWI than any Iraqi a/c did and we couldn't shut them down even though we dominated the air.  Strictly operated in a clean configuration for low observability and range performance, F-35 should be able to stalk mobile missile launchers better than F-22 as currently kitted out, F-16, F-15E and F-18 any model in a high threat environment and at night or in adverse weather conditions.  That's just one case in favor of F-35.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 1:41:57 PM


An F-16 Block 60 needs less tanker support -- not only does it have equally good unrefuelled range, it achieves it with less fuel to begin with.

Bull. An F-16 Block 60 is going to have to deal with Drag when carrying external stores.

Yes, but even so, the F-16 is a vastly smaller and lighter airplane than the F-35 and doesn't burn as much gas.  It is at least as fuel efficient as the F-35 in a combat situation, and it is far more efficient in a clean configuration -- which means that for the vast majority of its flight hours (training) it will cost less to operate.
 


Again thats just not correct. You are getting lost at the platform level. The F-35 will have a much smaller maintenance footprint, PBL which F-16 doesn't have yet and the F-35 because it is a common airframe will simplify DoD logistics and training across the board for three services rather than your USAF centric proposal. An F-16 Blk 60 might burn slightly less gas, but that is only one aspect of it's cost. If I'm training my pilots as Red Flag to go after a target defended by heavy IADS. I have to send that F-16 as a part of a package so that it has a chance to survive and make the training realistic. The F-35 won't need as much. And are you quoting F-16 blk 60 range with CFT+external fuel? or internal + CFT only. I think you are adding the wing drop tanks.

 
 


Then this 4/8 times nonsense.  That is absolutely meaningless.   You might as well say "it's a super duper awesome fighter and the F-16 is not".

LOL it's not nonsense. If you cannot detect the F-35, if it's got a range and fuel advantage, a more powerful and comprehensive weapons and sensor suite. Its going to be able to do things an F-16 blk 60 can't. You are the one claiming the F-16 is a superduper fighter. I wonder can you explain that in the context of an F-16 vs F-35 debate. NO. Look at the kind of strike package you would need to put together when sending your F-16 into harms way compared to a 5th Gen stealth jet like the F-35. Do the math Phaid. Look at the difference in capability.

 


The F-35 has NO range and fuel advantage.  It has a more powerful radar and it has stealth, sure.  I'm not debating that the F-35 does not have capabilities that the F-16 does not, I am saying that those capabilities come at too high a price to be affordable for the entire tactical fighter fleet.  They are not needed in those kinds of numbers.
 

Sure it does. It can carry weapons cleanly configured into hostile airspace. F-16 cannot do that. The F-16E needs to carry external tanks to get the range the F-35 does while carrying weapons because it has to power through drag.

 


How is the F-35 going to be four times more effective at dropping SDBs on the Taliban or AQ or whoever we wind up going after on the HOA?  If we're so worried about "the wars we're fighting today" then that is a question you must be able to answer.
Because an F-35 is not only for Taliban. The F-35 can actually penetrate into places like Pakistan and Iran, unescorted, remain undetected and strike targets or shoot down jets as well. It will have higher sortie rates and simplified logistics compared to an F-16 because it's going to use PBL. 

In other words, you have NO answer to that, because the F-35 is IN NO WAY superior for fighting "today's wars".  Zero.  None.


WRONG. It will offer the interoperability with allied air forces and
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Why is that?   4/21/2009 1:43:39 PM

Strictly operated in a clean configuration for low observability and range performance, F-35 should be able to stalk mobile missile launchers better than F-22 as currently kitted out That's just one case in favor of F-35.

v^2

Please explain why the F-22 isn't the perfect penetration interdictor. The only limitation it has over the F35 in this role is that it can not carry an 2000lb bomb internally. Not strictly required for the mobile missile launcher mission you suggest.  Note:
 
 ht**tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-weapons.htm 

The F-22 can carry the 1,000-pound class JDAM weapon. For the F-22, the JDAM tail guidance kit fits on the Mk. 83 1,000-pound-class conventional bomb. Weight of the Mk. 83 bomb and tail guidance kit is approximately 1,015 pounds The combination of the stealthy F-22 and the precision capability of the GBU-32 allows the F-22 pilot to drop the weapon from altitudes of approximately 40,000 feet to a range of approximately 15 miles.

The GBU-32 is only carried in the F-22's main weapons bay. A typical combat load consists of two GBU-32. One GBU-32 is carried inboard in each side of the main weapons bay. When loaded with GBU-32, there is still sufficient room in the F-22's main weapons bay to carry two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles (one in each side of the bay, in addition to the two AIM-9 Sidewinders in the side weapons bays), which means that even on a mission to attack ground targets, the F-22 retains significant air-to-air combat capability.

Each 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 will be loaded from the opposite side of the F-22 (the JDAM in the left side of the weapons bay is loaded from the right and visa versa), in order to clear the open main weapons bay doors. The current MJ-1 load vehicle (called a jammer) is used to load the GBU-32 into the F-22. The GBU-32 is carried on the Air Force's standard BRU-46/A bomb rack (which is built by EDO). The weapon is carried on the inboard side of the bay with an adjacent AIM-120C missile staggered on the outboard side. This is so tail fins on the bomb and the missile's wings do not interfere with each other when the weapons are either released or launched.

The GBU-32 gets target information from the aircraft prior to release via a Miltary Standard (Mil Std) 1760 data bus. JDAM can be dropped by an aircraft from up to 15 miles from the target. In addition to its own inertial guidance system, the weapon receives in-flight position updates from the 24-satellite GPS satellite constellation which help guide the bomb to the target. The GPS constellation provides 24-hour navigation information to military and civilian users. The GBU-32's autonomous operation allows the carrying aircraft to release the weapon and leave the area, thus avoiding an enemy's integrated air defense (surface-to-air missiles, antiaircraft artillery ("triple A"), and radars) system, but still delivering the weapon to the target.

GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb

The F-22A has the capability to carry a variety of conventional and Long Range Stand-Off Weapons (LRSOW) for air-to-ground ordnance delivery. When performing air-to-ground missions, the F-22A can internally carry two Global Positioning System-aided 250-pound GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb in place of two AIM-120s and two AIM-9 missiles. The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) (Guided Bomb Unit [GBU]-39/B) is designed to provide the F-22A with multiple targeting capabilities. Langley munitions crews loaded the new GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb onto an operational F-22A Raptor 15 July 2006. The fit test, conducted by members of the 27th Aircraft Maintenance Unit and observed by experts from Lockheed, Boeing, Edwards AFB, Calif., and Eglin AFB, Fla., was the first time the new weapon had been loaded into a combat-ready Raptor.

Weighing in at 250 pounds and a diameter of only six inches, the advantage of the GBU-39 is the amount that can be loaded into an F-22. It increases the target capabilities of the F-22 by 400 percent. Instead of two JDAMs, it will carry eight SDBs internally.

The Air Combat Command commander declared initial operational capability for the Guided Bomb Unit-39/B Small Diameter Bomb 02 October 2006 and the weapon made its combat debut just three days later. Boeing, the GBU-39B manufacturer, describes the bomb as "the next generation of low-cost and low-collateral damage precision s

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Air to Air, Air to Ground. This is nothing to sniff at as a interdictor in high threat environments...   4/21/2009 1:51:35 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 1:59:18 PM




Phaid,



If you think F-16 blk 60 is a good idea. Why not go with the current 187 F-22's, Upgrade the Golden Eagle fleet we will keep to Silent Eagle configuration, and purchase the F-35 as planned so as not to forfeit one of the greatest weapons we have which is our ability to form and fight within coalitions and allow us to have a predominantly 5th Gen fighter force the majority of which are capable of fighting low and high end of the spectrum of conflict?





Notwithstanding the fact that you can't upgrade the F-15Cs into F-15SEs (you'd have to completely rebuild the fuselage to retrofit the canted tails) I'm not sure what my liking the Block 60 has to do with the F-15SE.  As I've already stated, my contention is that a high-low mix is what is needed, where the dedicated air superiority aircraft are the high end.  The F-15SE (even new build ones) does not qualify as "the high end" in that scenario.
 
Sure you could. The only question is cost.  My point is though that if why screw the entire world by canceling the F-35 when we can just upgrade the F-15s we are going to keep anyway and use them along side the F-22's. F-15s still have plenty of fight left and are the second best operational fighter next to an F-22.
 

The argument that we can't form and fight within coalitions without the F-35 is bunk.  We do it just fine now, thanks, and it's only going to get easier as everyone is standardizing on compatible network protocols.
 
I didn't say we can't. But pissing off allies who have invested heavily in F-35 certainly isn't going to help either and those allies will have to forfeit those cost and initiate some sort of alternative that will cost them A LOT more money. That may make hinder their ability to contribute to war efforts because they are on much tighter budgets.
 

And again with that contradiction: if we're going to drop the F-22 because we don't need a small number of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum, why then do we want to spend nearly as much per-aircraft in order to get a whole fleet of fighters that can fight on the high end of the spectrum?


It's not a contradiction, you are making a Strawman. I didn't say drop the F-22. I said stop buying them after 187. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/21/2009 2:00:46 PM
Can and will are two different things. It doesn't exist for F-16. It does for F-35.

LOL.  Nothing exists for the F-35.
 
PHAID, the budget is going to shrink. Buying more F-22's means buying less of something else. F-35 is not an option for cancelation and has received additional funding. No F-35 nations has chosen F-16E over F-35. The demand for F-35 dwarfs the future for F-16s. What program other than F-35 are you going to cut to fund the minimum 40 billion necessary to buy 213 additional Raptors at 150 mil each and upgrade 2000 USAF F-16C's to F-16E standard? You cannot do this without cutting the F-35 and the F-35 is essentially sacrosanct at this point. Its not going to be cut.
 
It's not going to be cut today.  But it is clearly in trouble, and we're completely betting the farm on it anyway.  What's more, the countries you're so worried about offending if we can it aren't immutably committed to it either.  Every single JSF partner has reduced or delayed commitments, or not actually made any purchase commitments yet.
 
Yep, budgets are going to shrink, and the smart thing to do in the face of shrinking budgets and uncertain futures is NOT to drop high-quality, successful projects in favor of unproven ones with spiraling costs and unanswered risks.
 
I said it before and I'll say it again: I would not be the least bit surprised if 5 years down the road we don't have a JSF program any more because it, too, becomes unaffordable.  And when that happens we will be completely screwed.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Apples and rocks.   4/21/2009 2:09:30 PM




How the incompetent never include the LOGISTICS TAIL of a  naval task force



 



-like the Tico

-the two Arleighs 

-the Sacramento

-the Los Angeles or the Virginia 

-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?

 

Sixty F-22s versus a Ford.




Apples and rocks again.




One equipped USAF base versus a Navy task force.is the proper comparison.




This is what I mean by incompetent and someone who is not ton be taken seriously in his pronouncements.




He fails when he ventures into analysis, most of the time.




Herald  











Once again creating his own strawman argument. I'm discussing the cost savings of the CVN-78 over the CVN-68 where savings over the life are clear at about 6 billion if we replace CVN-68 with CVN-78. This incompetent is now building the strawman of logistics tails without regard to the fact that these are also going to be required for ANY CARRIER. Unless Herald is suggesting that CVN-68 doesn't also require:

 -like the Tico

-the two Arleighs 


-the Sacramento

-the Los Angeles or the Virginia 

-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?










I'm sure glad I'm the voice of reason and not obsessed with a platform. Herald obviously thinks the Ford Class will simply increase that Carrier fleet numbers and USS Enterprise and the Oldest Nimitz class will remain inservice indefinitely. And he has the nerve to call a person incompetent? LOL










-DA 



You are both technically incompetenbt and not telling the truth poster. You were arguing apriori the cost comparison of 60
 F-22s versus one Ford Class carrier.
 
You are also not the voice of reasoin as your arguments descended to calling others liars. CREF above and check a mirror. for the nearest distorter of the "truth" to your person.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 2:10:33 PM

That isn't the article I meant to post. Oh, well, let's go with it:    from the article note the following... 



Based on different war fighting 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.

Air force has been advised to change their analysis for political reasons. Obama wants to plan his procurement based upon "different war fighting assumptions", ie: one where he can cut the program for political reasons.  





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.

 

Here they state that since they are not going to get the money so they have to change their minds.

 

Clearly, the USAF is reacting to political realities in this piece. Their "unbiased" review had lead them to the conclusion that 187 was  not enough. "since then additional factors have arisen" "unfunded $13 Billion". They didn't get the money. No where does the USAF say that new factors have created a different threat matrix, requiring fewer air superiority aircraft. The piece demonstrates that this is political and the real requirement is for 243 aircraft (that is my story and I am sticking too it!). I'd say that their original assessment was the honest assessment and their new one is clearly not supported. It is life in the DOD procurement cycle.



On the F35, it does not exist yet and as such isn't a factor in this conversation. What might be in 5 years is a thin whisp of a hope compared to an open assembly line with certified aircraft running off of it. The cost of the F22 is getting lower with every unit produced. Phaid shows US clearly that the cost of the F35 is not yet known and like all new aircraft it has teething problems. Finally, the F35's budget will be cut significantly once the F22 is killed.



Bet on it.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

The other article (the one I meant to post):
 

ht***tp://lexingtoninstitute.org/1396.shtml


 

AIR FORCE PREPARED TO END F-22 AT 243 AIRCRAFT, NOT 187




Rebecca L. Grant, Ph.D.


Issue Brief


Apr 9, 2009


Print friendly page

Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 2:14:01 PM


Please explain why the F-22 isn't the perfect penetration interdictor. The only limitation it has over the F35 in this role is that it can not carry an 2000lb bomb internally. Not strictly required for the mobile missile launcher mission you suggest.  Note:

 

The F-22 certainly does offer some good strike capability and it better if it hopes to fill the F-117 role. But the F-35 is far deadlier in this role Rocky...


And has longer range as well. Of did I mention that the F-35 is to be used by all three services and allies as well.


-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