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
Herald12345    There is not one personal attack in that post, Warpig.   4/7/2009 12:27:21 PM
I simply pointed out that they are not making a case on the merits especially when Darth personally accused me of being unable to do a situational or strategic analysis.
 
Well I just performed the situational analysis right in front of you and showed you that the evidence they question is in plain sight and my ability they said that I don't have I used  right in front of them.  
 
I was the one insulted here, not them.
 
If I don't respect an assertion am I prohibited from saying so? If I am constantly accused of being biased against someone because of emotions, when time after time its data that I roll out showing that the point under discussion is not something I emote about like some of them do, but that I take a coldly cynical view as to the arguments and emotional appeals poured forth by them in support of theor heroes? 
 
Frankly, I would like some facts instead of opinions that is based on "official authority" or because "I claim that I served where I do operational analysis and I have insider knowledge and you don't"^1.
 
 Pfui. I looked at the postings of some of those who claim that they have "insider knowledge" and I match it against what I KNOW and can cite and prove. 
 
And guess what?  They don't know what they are talking about,.but I can't say this, that they don't know what they are talking about-right when I demonstrate it there to them in print; because that would show I'm arroigant?

Come on. 
  
Then on top of that; I'm supposed to shut up and be insulted too? 

Herald
 
^1 Appeal to hidden authority.
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/7/2009 12:33:26 PM
With respect war pig, I read his article and could not detect any arrogance (or personal insults).
 
I chalk it up to his style and I like it.    I found Heralds post to be quite informative.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 1:28:58 PM

Then on top of that; I'm supposed to shut up and be insulted too? 



Herald


^1 Appeal to hidden authority.

You aren't being asked to shut up or be insulted. You are being asked to articulate why you think 60 more F-22's are necessary. If all you are going to say is "The PRC Bandits...ect and so forth", then fine. But can you back that up? Thus far it is a resounding NO. About all you have done is call Gates a fool and what ever term you are using for the week to refer to Obama. THAT IS NOT HOW WE DO AN ANALYSIS.

You are quite literally being asked to articulate why the DoD is a mere 60 airframes short of achieving the USAF core mission. Thats it. It's all very simple and can be done without all the drama. OR you can take the side of the USAF can do it's mission with or without the 60 additional planes and because of that the 60 extra Raptors are discretionary rather than mandatory for mission accomplishment.

What's so hard about that? 


-DA



P.S. When you go around calling people like the SecDef "fools" and disrespect the President of the United States, it does indeed come off as arrogant. These people have risen to the top of their career paths and are privy to information you can't even imagine. That doesn't mean they are always making the best decision as they are human. But it does mean that in order to credibly negate what they say, you have to be on very solid ground and capable of backing up your positions. Perhaps if you avoided the insults, people who are biased toward Obama and Gates might actually listen to your position without immediately writing you off as a ultra right wing fanatic. Remember, these are two immensely popular leaders and the chances are most people don't harbor your negative views outside your normal circle of friends and family. Consider that. Logos, ethos and pathos. All three need to be well articulated and consider the audience. Regards.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    EH-101 - US 101 - VH-71   4/7/2009 1:32:41 PM

Can anyone tell me how a $27 millionish EH-101 became a $427 millionish VH-71 presidential helicopter? Certainly there were some enhanced communication and safety retrofits and of course some luxury additions but the costs quoted in various usually reliable publications are unbelieveable. Are those numbers real and if not what are the actual numbers?


The original contract was for an off the shelf solution but it quickly balloned into almost a new chopper.  The mods required for safety, load, and various other defensive systems included a longer rotor, longer tail boom, and a new heavy drive chain.  The result was a whole new series of certification tests.  So - EH-101 became US101 and finally VH-71.
 
So this cost has to be spread out over 18 (and later after LockMart punted - 23) airframes - thus pumping up the total cost per to around $427 million. Of course, this included the added commo gear, new anti-missile defenses and rescue/safety loads.
 
Meanwhile - the boys at Sikorsky were falling over themselves pointing at the cost and asking why. 
 
Do keep in mind that the plant (LockMart) that was charged with making all these conversions/changes and testing is located in ... (wait for it)... NEW YORK.  In fact, LockMart sponsored then Senator Hillary Clinton on a paid trip to visit the plant and give a pep-talk to the cheering workers.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald    4/7/2009 1:45:02 PM
Losing actually. There are EW features in that canceled satellite we will need and could use now. You haven't been paying attention to what I posted about the EW war we've been fighting in NE Asia have you?
No Herald, darn it, I don't keep up with your every utterance.  but as we are WINNING, by any objective measure, it's a capability that it might be NICE to have, but not essential.  And there is always the POTUS after this one, to re institute the program.
 
We will not be able to lift what we were able to. Taken a look at the LPD program recently? You really should. The LHA(R) isn't in too good shape either.
Yeah, again, you mean the ability to lift 3 MEB's, though we've never had the need to do so in the last 50-60 years.  The last amphibious operation didn't involve the full MAF, I believe only the opening waves, at Inchon, were amphibious, the rest were sea-lift.  And since then we've used the USMC, in its amphibious role, exactly..NO times.  So you're saying we need lift capacity we don't use?  The mismanagement of the San Antonio Class is a different discussion than the necessity of 12 ARG's.
 
We were not that well trained.  Don't delude yourself.
Well, we seem well enough trained to have beaten the heck out of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Insurgency.  It's like the old story about the two guys and the bear, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to outrun, YOU."  If you'd care to mention a military BETTER trained than the US I'm all ears.  Mind you I'd dispute the UK or Tzahal....and certainly the DPRK or the PRC forces are not as well trained.  I don't think the Iranians, the Chinese or the North Koreans have a force nearly so well-trained, and they seem to be our most likely STATE ACTOR opponents.  As to the non-state opponents I see a lot of dead Iraqi insurgents and dead Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but not a lot of dead US troops.  I don't see there's much evidence of a training gap, on the US side there, either.  Bald assertions, aren't evidence.

Which will not stop the DF 2X or M series  1X PRC missiles. MEADS with improved PAC III just barely will.CREF above about losing the EW war-specifically radar ghosting and active terminal seeker technology.
So they are MARV warheads....?
1. A laser is a particle beam. (photons)
Yes, but the common definition of a particle BEAM weapon is NOT a laser.  Generally it means a charged or non-charged particle, such as electrons or helium nuclei, IIRC.  Lasers are generally called LASERS.
2. Lasers suffer atmospheric jitter. A lightning gun (CPAC or free electrons) doesn't   
So, lasers AREN'T PArticle Beam weapons, when you want them to be so, right? As suddenly there's a difference between Free Electron and lasers...interesting.  There is atmospheric jitter, I'm sure, but as no one has a Free Electron Laser or a Charged or Neutral Particle Beam weapon any where near deployment, the Laser just barely crossing the usability threshold, I think you're being a bit silly.  Because whilst many Particle Beam Weapons might be better than a laser, they aren't available now any way, and so we are left with the Laser and Missiles, for the foreseeable future.  No matter WHAT budget decisions are made.
3. Missile interceptors need funding too to stay current with threat defense. 
You think you are going to argue this with ME?
Um' yes Herald...I will because it's not about electron-volts or propagation chambers, but about the idea of what is available TODAY, and what is available TOMORROW...that's not engineering.  See you make the mistake of thinking because you know engineering you know other stuff and that's a dangerous assumption to make.
They attacked another truck park today. They're doing it at the rate of at least once a week.  We control nothing inside Pakistan. its one of the reasons that Darth doesn't know what he is talking about. Don't make the same error.
Wow, another truck park was attacked...just like the Iraqi's assaulted the MSR...and in no case has the ability of the ISAF forces been compromised by a lack of supplies.  When the Taliban can cut supplies by an average of 10% per day or so, then they're doing good and give me a call.  The fact that a semi or two dies dail
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    So Far Unanswered   4/7/2009 2:42:47 PM
  Lest we get too far off the track, with Herald and this thread become some obscure discussion of Free Electron Lasers and the utility of Touch Screens let?s review?.  
1)      The US economy shrank last year, and is likely to shrink this year.
2)      The Defense Budget is a percentage of GNP, as GNP SHRINKS, so shrinks the Defense Budget. The only way to achieve even a non-shrinkage, much less budget growth, is to INCREASE the Defense Budget as a percentage of the GNP
3)      The political philosophy that would increase the percentage of GNP devoted to Defense did NOT win, the elections of 2008.
4)      So, defense spending must decrease.
5)      Herald, and others, want to INCREASE the numbers of F-22?s bought, in a shrinking Defense Budget.
6)      Herald has presented a list of things that are being cut, and at the level of 187 air frames for the F-22.
7)      Herald wants to spend MORE on the F-22.
8)      Conclusion: The budget is shrinking, and Herald wants more F-22?s therefore Herald will sacrifice all things listed as ?bad? budget cuts, and then make some more, in order to purchase another 60 F-22?s
9)      My question remains, IN ADDITION TO THE CUTS ALREADY SUGGESTED, what cuts will you, Herald, or others recommend, in order to fund another 60 F-22?s? Defense spending is NOT going to increase. It IS going to shrink, for some period of time. So what would you give up for another 60 air frames?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Don't offer advice.    4/7/2009 2:53:26 PM
untilo you pull the mote out of your own eye, Darth.
 
Gates is a fool. The case against him is solid. He could have canceled Marine One last year. He didn't. He could have argued LCS last year. He didn't he could have argued F-22 last year. He didn't  Instead he chose to wait until a fool was in charge so he could put his own stupid theories into action.  I didn't know we could find a Rumfeld II, but we did. 
 
The interregnumist is a fool. The unemployment figures are the leading domestic indicator. Coordinated actions by the PRCS, the Iranians, and the DPRKs show this internationally. The interregnumist's inability to get more NATO troops for Afghanistan when he pranced around in Europe making protocol mistakes everywhere show this.
 
 

Can't Spell NATO Without NO: Obama's Troop Request Denied

HuffPo reports ...that the US' NATO allies have spurned a request from President Obama for more troops in Afghanistan:
STRASBOURG, France - President Barack Obama hailed "strong and unanimous support" from NATO allies on Saturday for his stepped-up anti-terror strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and welcomed their "down payment" promises of 5,000 fresh forces.

The allies rebuffed U.S. appeals for more combat forces to join the war, but the backing Obama did gain at a European summit allowed him to claim an early victory on the world's foreign policy stage.
The President downplayed this aspect of the meeting, noting the progress that was made. His characterization of the 5,000 troops as a "down payment" seems to be a signal to the Allies that US expectations have not changed.

I expect many Americans, right, left, and center, will be enraged by European reticence to pitch in. After all, this was the war that we all agreed about. Was their opposition to the Iraq War sincere, or merely a fig leaf for naked self-interest?

Still, for those inclined to see this as a fail..., I offer this:Barack Obama's modus operandi is that of the wise man who builds his house upon the rock. He's patient, willing to allow a strong consensus to build, rather than to force a weak agreement. France and Germany are mulling this request over, and while they ruminate, their respective peoples will have a chance to weigh in on the notion that Afghan/Pakistan-based terrorists aren't such a threat to Europe.

If public opinion doesn't force them to step up, the President can then apply, more effectively, the pressure that might have been wasted at this early stage.

Here at home, I would urge those who seek to undercut the President that their outrage would be more productively aimed at those shamefully reticent countries, rather than at Barack Obama. International perception that the US is divided in its support for the President on this issue will certainly weaken America's ability to pressure their support.

You can see what this story looked like
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 2:55:59 PM

  Lest we get too far off the track, with Herald and this thread become some obscure discussion of Free Electron Lasers and the utility of Touch Screens let?s review?.  

1)      The US economy shrank last year, and is likely to shrink this year.

2)      The Defense Budget is a percentage of GNP, as GNP SHRINKS, so shrinks the Defense Budget. The only way to achieve even a non-shrinkage, much less budget growth, is to INCREASE the Defense Budget as a percentage of the GNP

3)      The political philosophy that would increase the percentage of GNP devoted to Defense did NOT win, the elections of 2008.

4)      So, defense spending must decrease.

5)      Herald, and others, want to INCREASE the numbers of F-22?s bought, in a shrinking Defense Budget.

6)      Herald has presented a list of things that are being cut, and at the level of 187 air frames for the F-22.

7)      Herald wants to spend MORE on the F-22.

8)      Conclusion: The budget is shrinking, and Herald wants more F-22?s therefore Herald will sacrifice all things listed as ?bad? budget cuts, and then make some more, in order to purchase another 60 F-22?s

9)      My question remains, IN ADDITION TO THE CUTS ALREADY SUGGESTED, what cuts will you, Herald, or others recommend, in order to fund another 60 F-22?s? Defense spending is NOT going to increase. It IS going to shrink, for some period of time. So what would you give up for another 60 air frames?


And if I may add, WHAT missions will we not be able to accomplish with 60 less F-22's in the fleet? In other words, do we have viable alternatives to an F-22 fleet of 250+?

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/7/2009 2:58:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Gates' decision or Obama's support of that decision is unconstitutional.  It's just stupid.  Stupid isn't treasonous, otherwise we'd have to arrest half of Congress and at least a third of Obama's cabinet.  Obama trying to bypass the filibuster, Holder trying to use the DOJ to get what he wants, and Geithner wanting to impose a 90% tax on private business bonuses--that's unconstitutional.
 
I'll throw out some historical lessons why I think the F-22 buy is inadequate.  (The F-22 thread has a lot more reasons.)  The Germans fielded the Me 262, a very advanced fighter flown by expert pilots in JV 44 and Kommando Nowotny.  Did the 262 win the war for the Germans? Obviously not, because they were swamped by hordes of technologically-inferior P-47s and P-51s.  (To be fair, this does leave out the 262's chronic engine problems.)  The reason why the 262 was never available in numbers was due to a political decision made by Hitler and the Nazi Party, none of whom knew a damn thing about fighter combat, to try and make the 262 into something it wasn't.  I'm not comparing Gates or Obama to Hitler; that's silly.  But I am saying that this is a political decision being made without the input and against the wishes of the pilots whose asses will be on the line.
 
As far as the "just good enough" argument, the F-4 was just good enough to survive over North Vietnam.  That "just good enough" led to a 2:1 kill ratio against an enemy the United States outnumbered, outgunned, and outperformed.  The F-4 simply wasn't designed for what it was doing.  It did it well due to ingenuity and decent pilot training (excellent pilot training in 1972).  The pure fighter of the war, the F-8, sustained a 6:1 kill ratio.  Now which would you rather have--the 2:1 just good enough, or the 6:1 excellence?
 
Okay, great, this budget increases funds to COIN.  Wonderful.  But we're not going to be fighting in Afghanistan forever.  No, what I see here is a typical politician's choice: get the goodies now, and hope to God that the price doesn't come due until some other poor bastard is in office.  It's the same reason why Obama can pass off running up multi-trillion dollar deficits as no big deal.  He won't be around to pay for it, so what the hell does he care?
 
I don't believe we should cut funding to the F-35--it's needed, because the F-16 isn't getting any younger either.  But at some point, even with Silent Eagle, there is going to come a time when a new fighter is needed, just like at some point we're going to have to replace the KC-135 and the B-52.  Some people seem to think that these aircraft can just soldier on forever until the magical UCAV fighter finally replaces them.  Assuming that doesn't get cut as well...another sad fact is that Democrats tend to see the defense budget as a piggybank for their own pet programs.  Need I remind anyone of Barney Frank's comment that the military doesn't need "fancy toys"?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 3:00:38 PM
You make one assumption that may not be true - the defense budget will shrink over time.  If the DPRK or Iran decide to fling one into the USA itself, if a terrorist attack the US homeland again on national TV, if China decides to step off or start something... Any of these events of a dozen others could change the results in a quick fashion.
 
One thing is for sure - despite a smaller GNP - the entitlements section of the Federal budget is going to grow at a rate larger than inflation.  We also know that welfare reform is out the window and we are back to cash benefits sent out to non-productive members of society.  We are funding those who cannot pay their mortgage - by taxing people who can pay their mortgage - all for the sake of some sort of entitlement.  We have union bail outs for GM and Chrysler.  We have bank bail outs for Citibank and a host of others.  We have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac bail outs - complete with bonus money for the quasi-government execs.
 
So what section of the Entitlements are you willing to cut back on out of the trillion dollar budget?
 
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