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

JFKY    Herald   4/24/2009 10:25:48 AM
You're right Civility WAS lacking, might talk to Evil Fishy...I was rather polite...didn't call him/her cretin/posuer/liar or get all huffy about being accused of lying, nor did I explain that I was the intellectual god of the issue area, and managed to avoid posting lengthy internet articles that really didn't apply to the subject....
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/24/2009 11:45:57 AM

I'd rather we just quit wasting money, equipment, and personnel on such an unnecessary mission, and spend it fighting the war instead.

 



I wasn't aware that air defense over the United States was an unnecessary mission, thanks for clarifying that. Can we please just stop protecting the US and send all our forces to Iraq and Afghanistan so they may sleep well at night.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Good post Mustang   4/24/2009 12:12:43 PM
This is why the USAF advocated building 60 more F22s as a gap filler until the F35 arrived. Using USN aircraft to fill the upcoming gap in continental defense will be robbing Peter to pay Paul. It will use up USN airframes faster than projected and force the shortfall onto the Navy's critical carrier force. The bottom line is that there is a shortage of air superiority aircraft to conduct USAF mission requirements. The decision to stop F22 production is political and not a decision that reflects the USAF mission. 

The other shoe is of course the impending budget cuts that will fall on the F35 program as soon as the F22 is terminated. Gates/Obama are making a mistake here.

The impending fighter shortfall in the U.S. Air Force may prompt the Pentagon to turn to the Navy to fulfill some air sovereignty missions ? flying patrols in U.S. airspace ? in the future, according to Defense Department officials.


The Air Force is facing the retirement of up to 80% of the fleet dedicated to conducing the air sovereignty mission in the United States without timely replacements expected, according to testimony offered at a House Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing April 22. Of 16 Air National Guard units on alert status, 11 fly F-16s. The aircraft of eight of those units are expected to reach their service lives between Fiscal 2015-2017.


Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee expressed frustration that the Pentagon hasn?t articulated a plan to conduct the air patrol missions in light of the expected force structure reductions.


Peter Verga, deputy under secretary of defense for policy integration, said in prepared testimony that in the past, the Defense Department ?was prepared to reinforce the air sovereignty mission? with U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. After the hearing, he also cited the example to Aviation Week of carrier-based Navy aircraft filling in for Air Force missions while the F-15 fleet was grounded. Fleet-wide inspections were conducted after a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C broke apart in midair when its front right longeron failed in late 2007.


Verga declined to specify when Navy aircraft may be needed for air sovereignty missions, and which fighters would be used. The Navy also predicts it will encounter a fighter shortfall without the purchase of more F/A-18E/Fs. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, says the fleet has an excess capacity in tactical aircraft in light of the missions currently being conducted.


Though the F-15 fleet has returned to flight, some observers worry that similar issues associated with aging aircraft could unexpectedly cripple the Air Force?s ability to execute its missions, especially as planners call for F-22s and F-35s to replace more plentiful F-15s and F-16s.


Verga was joined by Davi D?Agostino, director of the Government Accountability Office?s homeland defense team; Lt. Gen. Daniel Darnell, Air Force deputy chief of staff for air, space and information operations; and Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, director of the Air National Guard.


Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was among the most vociferous critics of the Pentagon?s approach. ?The future of this mission, I think, is in question,? she said. The Air Force is ?ignoring the rapidly approaching fighter shortfall.? The 162nd Fighter Wing, which operates F-16s, is located in Tucson; those F-16s will no longer be flyable in six years without upgrades, she says.


Wyatt says that the Air National Guard, which will operate some F-22s and F-35s will get their aircraft ?late to need,? and he says that if his units received the stealthy ?fifth-generation? fighters sooner, much of the problem could be averted. Air sovereignty sites will begin to lack aircraft to conduct air patrol missions beginning in late 2014, with the largest number of units to be without them in 2020, according to GAO data presented by D?Agostino.


Giffords questioned purchases of legacy ?fourth-generation? fighters, such as F-15Es (variants of which are being sold to Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore) and F-16 Block 60, which includes the active electronically scanned array radar. On the heels of the announcement of Defense Secretary Robert Gates? plan to end F-22 production at the current 187 on order, Wyatt did not say whether he would advocate for buying older fighters. Air Force policy had been until recently to advocate only for the purchase of fifth-generation fighters, which include stealth, integrated avionics and internal weapons carriage. Should Congress decide in the current fisc

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/24/2009 1:50:58 PM
Gates explaining it to reporters...
 
 
ht*p://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/06/gates-ends-f22-production/
 
 
...pretty clear logic.
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/24/2009 3:01:08 PM

Nichevo, it is not indirect PRESSURE; it is a chain of command for which the President has DIRECT CONTROL over people who have DIRECT CONTROL over people with ALL OF THOSE MENTIONED under the DIRECT CONTROL of the people via the E.C. and the Congress.      One way or another, if the Presisdent really wants to replace one of his subordinates, he can do so. 

One way or another, if the people really want to replace the President, they can do so.   You even ADMIT THIS in the following:

---We delegate the Cabinet hire-fire to the President plus Congress for confirmation.  Once that's done, no backsies.  Congress can't say Hey, we don't like this guy anymore.  The President can, but he delegates the Cox hire-fire to his AG.  As we saw, no backsies.---

You do not understand our Constitutional Representative Republic.   The delegation of authority is to create gridlock to add time so very few, dramatic changes can occur; not to preclude the dramatic changes from occuring at all.

THEY CAN OCCUR and the mechanisms were installed to allow such a thing (you think Nixon could not repace the AG until he found one who would dance to his tune?).

You are falling into the trap JFKY fell into by thinking that just because I cannot pick up the phone and order the termination of an Executive official that I some how cannot remove him from office; I can.

It is not easy. It is not a simple process. BUT IT CAN AND HAS BEEN DONE.

As for a subthread; I am not pushing anything but responding to a comment SOMEBODY ELSE MADE.   Should THEY desire to create another thread they should do so.   Furthermore, this subject IS RELATED to this topic.

 

JKFKY---  Misrepresenting my words (lying) and posting statements of borderline mockery are stretching the limits of what I would call civility.    Not that I claim any moral high ground (I do not) but I do call it like I see it (for you, myself, and anybody else).

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reread what you wrote.   4/24/2009 3:33:42 PM

You're right Civility WAS lacking, might talk to Evil Fishy...I was rather polite...didn't call him/her cretin/posuer/liar or get all huffy about being accused of lying, nor did I explain that I was the intellectual god of the issue area, and managed to avoid posting lengthy internet articles that really didn't apply to the subject....

You and he were not on F-22 topic, your own citations on your sidebar were either not relevant to the LEGAL argument or not on point; since the issue is Constitutional Law and not Civil Service Regulation and finally you forgot that impeachment is the means whereby the CONGRESS as the people's representatives can remove ANY Federal officer for cause.  Since the Congress is the people's representation, they act in the people's name.
 
QED. You don't understand your own government. I told you this:.
 
From the US Constitution

  Article II

Article Text | Annotations... 

  Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any o

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/24/2009 3:38:52 PM
Thank you Herald.   
 
It seems quite alright to derail a thread spouting opinions that run contrary to law but it is not alright to correct those inaccurate assertions when they are in fact made.
 
I will not be posting any more on this topic in this thread.  If anyone wants to discuss the topic further, create a new thread.  Apparently, it is time for me to sod off; as it were.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    US air coverage.   4/24/2009 3:50:09 PM
[SARCASM] I seem to remember saying that we needed about 50 super-cruise capable aircraft to provide air defense coverage of the US airspace against a 9-11 contingency when I laid out the coverage numbers for the F-22.
 
The F-22 is the only long endurance super-cruise air to air combat platform we have. It can cover 2x the radian that our conventional fighters can when those birds have to chase hard to catch a rogue contact. Super-cruise fighters could have run down the Pentagon aircraft and Flight 93 at Mach 1.5 without burning up all their fuel in reheat . Its called coverage.
 
It also points out why PHYSICS and needed technological capability trumps accountants and political; wonkery and assertions when it comes to war.
 
Anyone here want to fund a super-cruise engined Eagle? Very very expensive rebuild. How about Falcons? Super Hornet would require a whole new jet engine be designed for it from scratch.
 
What's that I hear?.....................................................................crickets. 

Buy the sixty F-22 birds and put this argument to bed.[/SARCASM]
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/24/2009 4:40:42 PM




I'd rather we just quit wasting money, equipment, and personnel on such an unnecessary mission, and spend it fighting the war instead.



 








I wasn't aware that air defense over the United States was an unnecessary mission, thanks for clarifying that. Can we please just stop protecting the US and send all our forces to Iraq and Afghanistan so they may sleep well at night.


 
No problem, glad that now you know it.  It was obvious to me that the possibility of anyone hijacking an airliner and flying into a target in the U.S. anytime on or after 9/12 dropped to basically unmeasurable right around 0900 on 9/11--and it's certainly now many orders of magnitude less than it was before 9/11... when it at least appeared to be extremely unlikely.  Frankly, I question the analytical abilities of anyone who thinks otherwise--at least for about the next 10-20 years or so, until we start to become lax again due to no recent threat activities.  In any event, the continental U.S. air defense mission is certainly more than adequately met through use of a few of the F-15s we already have for that mission.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/24/2009 4:46:25 PM



No problem, glad that now you know it.  It was obvious to me that the possibility of anyone hijacking an airliner and flying into a target in the U.S. anytime on or after 9/12 dropped to basically unmeasurable right around 0900 on 9/11--and it's certainly now many orders of magnitude less than it was before 9/11... when it at least appeared to be extremely unlikely.  Frankly, I question the analytical abilities of anyone who thinks otherwise--at least for about the next 10-20 years or so, until we start to become lax again due to no recent threat activities.  In any event, the continental U.S. air defense mission is certainly more than adequately met through use of a few of the F-15s we already have for that mission.

 

Exactly. I don't doubt that F-22's can intercept these threats. But so can legacy fighters too just in larger numbers. And we have the legacy platforms to do this already. In other words, while F-22's would be nice for this role, we don't need them because we have other viable options to provide the coverage.
 
-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