The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 20, 2010




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

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 4:26:39 PM

This is in line with some of what I've read on CSIS (Center of Strategic and International Studies) source:

"http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080422_fy2009_poisoned_chalice.pdf"

 



The briefing can only provide a brief overview of the full scale of the crisis the nation faces in military procurement. These problems are so permeating in every service, and affect so many critical programs, that it is brutally apparent that the Department has no real world spending plans, and is indulging in a ?liar?s contest? in terms of costs, the timelines for major programs, their probable effectiveness, the numbers it can actually procure, and the force trade-offs between

modernization and force cuts.

 

Even if one ignores key issues in effectiveness and availability, work by the GAO shows that the cost of the defense major acquisition portfolio rose from $790 billion in FY2000 to $1.6 trillion in FY2007, and outstanding commitments rose from $390 to $858 billion. The average cost escalation in RDT&E costs over the first cost estimate rose to 40% over the eight-year period, and total acquisition costs rose 26%. The share of programs with more than 25% cost escalation rose from 37% to 44% and the average delay in delivering initial capability rose from 16 months to 21 months.

 

Work by both the GAO and CBO indicate these problems are likely to escalate steadily in the nearterm unless the next Administration acts quickly to control them, and reshaping an affordable and effective procurement program may well take at least the full term of the next President. This may well involve major program cancellations, and further hardship for defense industry. It certainly means a need to establish far more realistic standards for estimating program costs, schedules and deployment times, and effectiveness; far tighter standards of program management; and far tighter control over the klind of changes in specifications and design that do so much to raise cost and increase program delays.






This stuff isn't all that out of line with what the pro's on strategic thinking are saying. The US may need to do this in order to stay on top in the long run.


 



 
This is indeed the case. This has more to do with effective management and reemphasis on national security realities rather than the unlikely USAF vs PLAAF scenarios people obsess over. Again, no one can articulate a single case where the success or failure of the USAF is hinged on 60 additional airframes. Heralds Guam Scenario is interesting fiction, but it is exactly that. As is the suggestion that there are 30,000 "useless" soldiers running around the U.S. Army. I had to take 42A to war and send them to shake and bake just to meet the minimum manning requirements. In fact, I had to fill 11B slots with females for the first 3 months! The DoD needs to do two things. Get spending under control and refocus efforts on the conflicts we are actually going to fight. 

Herald, you are a smart person, but you are way off here. 

-DA 

 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    As to Congressional Power   4/7/2009 4:30:17 PM
You are correct, Softwar...there is the fact that many delegations will be affected by the decision.  HOWEVER, many delegations are affected by ANY decision and one decision they agree on is that the Defense Spending will fall...so if they keep 250 F-22's expect O&M to fall dramatically.  Because they aren't too likely to cut other procurement programs.
 
Of course, Gates has already capped procurement at 187...his decision merely confirms it. SO the "pain" if any, has already been felt or will be felt in a number of years as production winds down.   Again it's not like the USAF had people lined up to fly and maintain 250 Raptor's and now those people have to be let go.  Those are people who will never be hired, in the first place.  So some pain is really just an opportunity cost.  The pain at the production level won't be felt this election cycle, I'd bet we aren't near the 187 production mark yet are we?  So Congressperson Bob/Roberta's constituents are still working on the F-22 production line....for now.
 
The F-22 decision is no shocker. It's been hashed out here before...it was made on George W's watch...to "defer" any further production decisions until the 2008 election.  Instead of "Bob" the Democrat SecDef agreeing to cap production it's merely SecDef Gates agreeing with his earlier decision. 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 4:31:09 PM

That the Iranians are pretty inept...and so I don't think another 60 F-22's are going to make much difference.  The 48 plane wing we deploy will destroy their air force several times over....and by the time we get 250 F-22's the Iranians will have already gotten their nuclear weapon or they will have been stopped.  It's not like we're going to see 250 F-22's in a year or so, no matter what budget decision is made.

 

Finally, where the Iranians aren't so inept, mine warfare and the like...the F-22 isn't going to do us any good.  Unless, of course, there's a secret anti-mine detection and destruction program/capacity built into the F-22.

 

In short, Iran isn't a  reason to build an extra 60 Raptors.  The PRC, mayhap, but not Iran...and should you have any questions I recommend Anthony Cordesmans Lessons of Modern War Volume II The Iran-Iraq War.  The Iranians are pretty inept at the higher levels of war...and nothing they've done since then demonstrates any increased aptitude.


You misread me my friend...
I have posted several times before that the "global" threat is why we need the extra F-22s - from protectin the homeland with CAP over America - to patrolling the skies in the Pacific, to intercept of Blackjacks over the Poles and potentially striking targets in the Middle East that are protected by SA-20 double digit SAM sites.  Iran is but one reason of many why the extra 60 are needed.
 
The Iranians have just orbited a satellite - proving the Shahab-4 is on schedule and within budget.  The DPRK just tried to do the same - using the funding from Iran.  If it can orbit the earth - it can also drop something on say... New York City.  A National Missile Defense would be nice but not here yet.  Striking hardened underground silos is also not an easy thing to do - especially when confronted by SAMs sites. 
 
Missiles are the preferred weapon of totalitarian states - easy to use - easy to hide - and one only has to have loyal SS troops to guard them.  None of this training a high class of warrior stuff - like F-22 pilots.  Just ask the Chinese.
 
Of course, missiles are not so useful to troops who want to stage an election - as compared to an air force.  So more dictators prefer missiles 10 to 1.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 4:34:03 PM











However, the political reality is what I posted coming out of the Senate and House Democrats - especially from states where LockMart is big (e.g. Conn., GA, Calif, Texas) - these are the guys who will make the final say.  At this point - I see the urge to keep the defense jobs on the F-22 overiding any Obama urge to cut it (or Gates for that matter).

 

Thems the facts....


 

I can see this having a tough time getting through congress considering we aren't talking about an elderly outdated weapon system.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 4:37:57 PM

You are correct, Softwar...there is the fact that many delegations will be affected by the decision.  HOWEVER, many delegations are affected by ANY decision and one decision they agree on is that the Defense Spending will fall...so if they keep 250 F-22's expect O&M to fall dramatically.  Because they aren't too likely to cut other procurement programs.

 

Of course, Gates has already capped procurement at 187...his decision merely confirms it. SO the "pain" if any, has already been felt or will be felt in a number of years as production winds down.   Again it's not like the USAF had people lined up to fly and maintain 250 Raptor's and now those people have to be let go.  Those are people who will never be hired, in the first place.  So some pain is really just an opportunity cost.  The pain at the production level won't be felt this election cycle, I'd bet we aren't near the 187 production mark yet are we?  So Congressperson Bob/Roberta's constituents are still working on the F-22 production line....for now.

 

The F-22 decision is no shocker. It's been hashed out here before...it was made on George W's watch...to "defer" any further production decisions until the 2008 election.  Instead of "Bob" the Democrat SecDef agreeing to cap production it's merely SecDef Gates agreeing with his earlier decision. 


Actually - LockMart will have to start closing up shops very shortly.  See the final jet roll off the line in 2010 or early 2011 - thus the pain will be felt right in time for ELECTIONS.  Hmmmm....
 
Again, with calls for hearings and Shelton saying things like we make the decision - not Gates or Obama - I see the Democrat party doing the usual thing....  Lockmart and the unions want the extra 60 even more than the USAF.  Keep in mind - Lockmart has just started to lobby and arm twist - they also somehow keep the C-130 going year after year after year - through Repubican administration objections overridden by Democrat controlled Congress.
 
The bets are on - I'm betting that the kneejerk reaction of losing jobs in a district, lobby money and good old American politics are going to win over any pledges made by Gates or Obama.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 4:39:29 PM


You misread me my friend...


I have posted several times before that the "global" threat is why we need the extra F-22s - from protectin the homeland with CAP over America - to patrolling the skies in the Pacific, to intercept of Blackjacks over the Poles and potentially striking targets in the Middle East that are protected by SA-20 double digit SAM sites.  Iran is but one reason of many why the extra 60 are needed.



No, we don't need any F-22's to defeat Iran in air combat. The USAF as is could do that on order and within days of a go and suffer very minimal if any loses. So what "global" threat are you talking about? What global threats could even stand up to a single wing or two of F-22s? I'm still waiting to read about it because I really would like to know why I haven't seen anything to suggest that we are vulnerable from the air to any nation.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 4:49:34 PM






You misread me my friend...






I have posted several times before that the "global" threat is why we need the extra F-22s - from protectin the homeland with CAP over America - to patrolling the skies in the Pacific, to intercept of Blackjacks over the Poles and potentially striking targets in the Middle East that are protected by SA-20 double digit SAM sites.  Iran is but one reason of many why the extra 60 are needed.










No, we don't need any F-22's to defeat Iran in air combat. The USAF as is could do that on order and within days of a go and suffer very minimal if any loses. So what "global" threat are you talking about? What global threats could even stand up to a single wing or two of F-22s? I'm still waiting to read about it because I really would like to know why I haven't seen anything to suggest that we are vulnerable from the air to any nation.




-DA 



 


 
Darth - no need to shout.  I certainly did not run big bold print or colored underlines.  Why do you suddenly go hysterical?
 
I see the F-22 as both air defense and strike - you don't see that.  Right now - nothing can go up against double digit SAMs - except the F-22.
 
I see the F-22 taking up the slack over the USA in air CAPs as we stand down F-16 and F-15 airframes that are 30 years old.  You don't see that.
 
I see the F-22 serviing both IW and EW roles in various locations - preventing wars.  You don't see that.
 
I see the extra F-22 serving in the Pacific, over the Artic, in the Middle East and over mainstreet USA. 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       4/7/2009 5:25:11 PM
Double digit sams could be targetted by cruise missiles, jamming and stand off weapons just like Saddam's quite advanced sam network was dealt with in the 1st gulf war.

This is indeed the case. This has more to do with effective management and reemphasis on national security realities.

Not sure if those are all the factors, leaving out the crisis for a moment, I have a hunch that capable technical personell might become really scarce. This would tend to increase the price of technology through higher wages for technicians or the cost of middle men hiring out technical personell. I've seen a lot of engineering departments where no-one working is under the age of 30. Compare this to the abundance of people with aircraft designing experience just after WW2.
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 5:26:26 PM

Darth - no need to shout.  I certainly did not run big bold print or colored underlines.  Why do you suddenly go hysterical?

I'm not shouting or excited in the least. It's the device I'm using to post. I increase the font so I can see it on the PDA. Apologies. 

I see the F-22 as both air defense and strike - you don't see that.  Right now - nothing can go up against double digit SAMs - except the F-22.

You are assuming. I do understand the F-22 has a strike capability. I never denied that. What I deny is that we need 60 more of them. And I disagree 100% that nothing can go up against double digit SAMs. I don't deny the F-22 is much more survivable. But there are other ways to do this. This is why the Israeli's run some of the training they do against other double digit SAM users

I see the F-22 taking up the slack over the USA in air CAPs as we stand down F-16 and F-15 airframes that are 30 years old.  You don't see that.

 You are wrong. I posted actual numbers about this 2 months ago. I know the F-22's would do it better. But they are not the only solution. Our F-15/16 fleet can do it as well. So there is an alternative.

I see the F-22 serviing both IW and EW roles in various locations - preventing wars.  You don't see that.

 Again, you are wrong. Search the archives. I've been one of the most active posters on EW/IW related issues as it pertains to F-22/35 and F/A-18E/F. 

I see the extra F-22 serving in the Pacific, over the Artic, in the Middle East and over mainstreet USA. 

Granted. And I don't think we need F-22's in all those locations at the same time. I think that with our legacy fighters and the F-35, we can use the F-22 fleet as a silver bullet force and shift that resource as needed. 


I don't disagree with the roles you see the F-22 serving in. I disagree that we can't do it with 60 fewer planes and that no alternatives exist. You cannot show otherwise.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/7/2009 5:46:34 PM
I don't disagree with the roles you see the F-22 serving in. I disagree that we can't do it with 60 fewer planes and that no alternatives exist. You cannot show otherwise.


 
It's not an issue of being able to do "xx" mission with "yy" asset, it's an issue (for me) that option "b" should never be forced to become option "a" due to failed and deliberate planning issues.

if you fight then you want to do it with the best available lethal option to give you overmatch - there are always plan "b's" for basic redundancy planning.

my concern as a non american are:

you plan to fight for the bext war
basic US policy was to be able to fight concurrently in different theatres and different regions - and that always implied a corresponding ability to fight different calibre opponents.  ie theatre to local - to special (eg look at the wide range of Exes that the US undertakes ranging from Sth America, RIMPAC, Cobra Gold, etc etc...  all are disparate but relevant )

I have no doubt that the US will see F-22's over the pacific within the near future - and it will be up against a regional power that has the political will to convert idealogical aspirations into military capability.  One is willing to be a superpower at a hard and soft level, the other seems to be pulling away and hoping that it can save itself some financial angst by gearing up for a  spotted regional conflicts where force mass is not as evident.

It's a self imposed tri- force version of the washington treaty - and we all know how the allied powers ended up technologically at the start of WW2. 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 7:17:24 PM







I don't disagree with the roles you see the F-22 serving in. I disagree that we can't do it with 60 fewer planes and that no alternatives exist. You cannot show otherwise.



It's not an issue of being able to do "xx" mission with "yy" asset, it's an issue (for me) that option "b" should never be forced to become option "a" due to failed and deliberate planning issues.


It isn't forced. We are choosing option b as the preference.


if you fight then you want to do it with the best available lethal option to give you overmatch - there are always plan "b's" for basic redundancy planning.


I disagree. When I fight I look for tools best capable of doing the job. If I have options and both meet the requirements, then I start looking into how I can save money in order to better prioritize resources. Example. I carry a gun for self defense. I could choose a Hi-Cap full size Semi-Auto. Or I can get a 5 shot cheaper revolver. I take a look and see that most shootings are within a few meters and almost never require more than a few shots to decide the outcome. I then have the choice to choose the revolver because it is suitable for the kinds of threats I will encounter even if its not as modern as the Semi-Auto. Now I have a few more dollars in my pocket to pour into something else I might need. That is what Gates is doing. 


my concern as a non american are:


you plan to fight for the bext war


basic US policy was to be able to fight concurrently in different theatres and different regions - and that always implied a corresponding ability to fight different calibre opponents.  ie theatre to local - to special (eg look at the wide range of Exes that the US undertakes ranging from Sth America, RIMPAC, Cobra Gold, etc etc...  all are disparate but relevant )


Right, but that was then, this is now. U.S. Warfighting doctrine is changing to focus more on 4th Gen style opponents and rogue failed states who would be lucky to fly anything more advanced than a late model Mig-29, F-16 or possibly an Su-27 in numbers under wing strength. The DoD needs to focus on Mexico, Pakistan and OIF/OEF. Then on containing the Russians within FSU territory. None of that requires a fighter heavy force.



I have no doubt that the US will see F-22's over the pacific within the near future - and it will be up against a regional power that has the political will to convert idealogical aspirations into military capability.  One is willing to be a superpower at a hard and soft level, the other seems to be pulling away and hoping that it can save itself some financial angst by gearing up for a  spotted regional conflicts where force mass is not as evident.



And that regional power is checked and will be checked in so many ways through 2025 that it's highly unlikely that we would ever fight directly with them. And if we did, the force we have will mop the floor with them and they know that. Heck they can't even protect their own SLOC. They can't even remain a functioning viable country without freetrade with us. Sure there is always the remote chance that war would break out. But it's something we are prepared for many times over.


This is why I keep asking the Forum Hawks to present a scenario. I have a rough idea on what numbers they can put up and from their point of view it's not at all encouraging if the USA gets involved.


It's a self imposed tri- force version of the washington treaty - and we all know how the allied powers ended up technologically at the start of WW2. 


Not to me or those making the choice. We see it as a conscious decision to change the focus of the DoD to deal with conflicts we see as much more likely.


-DA


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 7:18:27 PM
Formatting is all screwed up GF. Apologies in advance.


Regards
DA 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       4/7/2009 7:24:21 PM




How many Us citizens dead from an Al-Quaeda attack do you consider 'acceptble" for purchasing an extra 60 F-22's for a war that is most likely to NEVER happen?  But the pruchase of which divert resources from the War in Afghanistan?



 



See many can play that game.....



 



And yes, Herlad, DA has a good point. You want 250 F-22's, for fighting the PRC...but you don't discuss the trade-offs necessary within the fixed DoD budget to pay for them.  What do you give up to pay for them?  After all you've complained about the "gutting" of the Army, but your proposal guts it more...US GNP is shrinking, so even at a fixed rate of GNP for Defense the Defense BUdget will shrink.  You want more F-22's from a smaller pie, what will you cut to pay for them?




I'll give up those damned LCSes that don't do jack at all for my seapower for starters and about $60 billion in that new service to America bundle of crap social programs that that interregnumist plans to use as a government subsidized super ACORN subsidy.



Now then do you want to get SERIOUS with me, or do you want to keep putting up straw men?


 

Herald


 

 

As a life-long Navy-man, I will have to agree with Herald. I'd drop LCS like a hot rock. Instead, I'd put mission packages on the JHSV.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       4/7/2009 7:32:45 PM

As to LCS it is and is not a waste of time...From your Mahanian, Big War v. the PRC view I'm sure you view it as such, in ANY form.  As Mahan and you are off-base, I'll have to say that it is NOT clear that LCS is a waste of resources.  I'd recommend you peruse "Information Dissemination", if you haven't, for a discussion of the LCS program.  That site's position is somewhat agnostic on LCS, critical of the current management of the program, and it's current product, but supportive of the necessity of LCS.

LCS in its current form is a waste of time. We would be much better served using something like JHSV as a mother ship, attaching an DDG to ride shotgun, and using the mission packages for LCS, on an ad hoc basis.
 
The problem with LCS as Info Diss points to is its lack of endurance thanks to its small crew size and limited endurance. It's a turkey,  a big costly turkey. 
 
Why is it built to Navy damage control standards with such a small crew. How long is a crew of 75, if it has all its people and all the detachments onboard, supposed to fight damaged like the ROBERTS or the Stark took? Those ships barely survived with almost three times as many people.
 
 
If we bought the mission packages to be bought an used on things like JHSV, leased  JHSV and used the savings to buy F-22, I'd be a happy man.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       4/7/2009 7:44:57 PM
I don't disagree with the roles you see the F-22 serving in. I disagree that we can't do it with 60 fewer planes and that no alternatives exist. You cannot show otherwise.

Please use your Operational Analysis expertise to show why 187 is the right number.  Offer proof yourself, since you're demanding it.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.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