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

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 3:40:26 PM


You still are also ignoring the fact NOT ONE nation has actually put pen to paper and commited to buying ONE F35 as of yet. Not one DA. Ya know, you have lectured me several timesa about being open minded and listening to reason. But you are being completely bull headed and acting like an individual reading right from a script. I'm just the rookie here and know it but I have been following the JSF over the last 18-24 months and do have a basic understanding of what has been going on with it. It has CONSTANTLY continued to go up in price and that is not specualtion DA. It's just plain fact. To assume that now all the sudden its done goin up in price when the very agencys such as GAO, who elected officials pay a great deal of attention to, indicate just the opposite of what you insist on saying. How you dismiss the GAO as easily as you do me has to make one wonder just what is going on in your head. You remind of me of those old movies where the gunnie tells the Marine to charge the machine gun cuz he's a Marine and bullets dont hurt him and the Marines says yes sir and promptly charges the machine gun and promptly dies.

 

Feel free to disagree and factor cost as whatever makes you happy Beazzz. When you want to know how it going to play out just ask me and I'll tell you whats really going on in my opinion. Also I don't dismiss you, it;s just that you argue unsupported positions and you have consistently been consistently shown to be in error on this subject as has been pointed out to you. It's not a knock on you personally, but I believe you are entirely and completely wrong. Bottom line is, the USAF is committed to buying the F-35 is the numbers I mentioned. That was confirmed by the SecDef and USAF CoS. When such individuals publish or state something that suggest otherwise, I'll consider it then I DO NOT SEE A REASON FOR LESS at this time. I saw and predicted years ago on this site that the F-22 was terminal and would be capped. That happened. Thats because I am looking at requirements and threats as is and not how I wish them to be based on wild speculation on PRCs or whoever else. I have no biases or prejudices for or against any nation or threat. I neither love nor hate. I just make decisions based on data I believe to be accurate. It doesn't mean I'm always right. But more often than not as you can see from actual results. I do not see any justification in continued F-22 production. I do see a need for F-35 and threats across the spectrum we can use them for. Moreover, I see feverish energy being put into the program. So I have no reason right now to believe we will see any F-35 cuts in the immediate future. Of course in 10 years something could change that. And if that happens at that time decisions will be made. But for now, there is nothing suggesting any less than what's been stated for the USAF and I'm sticking with that. Everything suggest shift away from F-22 toward F-35...



On Tuesday, the F-22?s chief backer in Congress, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), said he wasn?t giving up continuing the program just yet but acknowledged the program?s future doesn?t look bright.

However, Lockheed?s chief financial officer said the ultimate impact at the Marietta plant, where final assembly of the F-22 employs 2,000 workers, might not be as bad as first expected.

That?s because while the F-22 program might be going away in the next several years, the Defense Department?s plans to ramp up production on another fighter jet — the F-35 — as well as two cargo planes could save many jobs at the Marietta plant, which does work on those planes as well.

?We?

 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/29/2009 4:41:48 PM






You still are also ignoring the fact NOT ONE nation has actually put pen to paper and commited to buying ONE F35 as of yet. Not one DA. Ya know, you have lectured me several timesa about being open minded and listening to reason. But you are being completely bull headed and acting like an individual reading right from a script. I'm just the rookie here and know it but I have been following the JSF over the last 18-24 months and do have a basic understanding of what has been going on with it. It has CONSTANTLY continued to go up in price and that is not specualtion DA. It's just plain fact. To assume that now all the sudden its done goin up in price when the very agencys such as GAO, who elected officials pay a great deal of attention to, indicate just the opposite of what you insist on saying. How you dismiss the GAO as easily as you do me has to make one wonder just what is going on in your head. You remind of me of those old movies where the gunnie tells the Marine to charge the machine gun cuz he's a Marine and bullets dont hurt him and the Marines says yes sir and promptly charges the machine gun and promptly dies.



 




Feel free to disagree and factor cost as whatever makes you happy Beazzz. When you want to know how it going to play out just ask me and I'll tell you whats really going on in my opinion. Also I don't dismiss you, it;s just that you argue unsupported positions and you have consistently been consistently shown to be in error on this subject as has been pointed out to you. It's not a knock on you personally, but I believe you are entirely and completely wrong. Bottom line is, the USAF is committed to buying the F-35 is the numbers I mentioned. That was confirmed by the SecDef and USAF CoS. When such individuals publish or state something that suggest otherwise, I'll consider it then I DO NOT SEE A REASON FOR LESS at this time. I saw and predicted years ago on this site that the F-22 was terminal and would be capped. That happened. Thats because I am looking at requirements and threats as is and not how I wish them to be based on wild speculation on PRCs or whoever else. I have no biases or prejudices for or against any nation or threat. I neither love nor hate. I just make decisions based on data I believe to be accurate. It doesn't mean I'm always right. But more often than not as you can see from actual results. I do not see any justification in continued F-22 production. I do see a need for F-35 and threats across the spectrum we can use them for. Moreover, I see feverish energy being put into the program. So I have no reason right now to believe we will see any F-35 cuts in the immediate future. Of course in 10 years something could change that. And if that happens at that time decisions will be made. But for now, there is nothing suggesting any less than what's been stated for the USAF and I'm sticking with that. Everything suggest shift away from F-22 toward F-35...











On Tuesday, the F-22?s chief backer in Congress, Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), said he wasn?t giving up continuing the program just yet but acknowledged the program?s future doesn?t look bright.


However, Lockheed?s chief financial officer said the ultimate impact at the Marietta plant, where final assembly of the F-22 employs 2,000 workers, might not be as bad as first expected.


That?s because while the F-22 program might be going away in the next several years, the Defense Department?s plans to ramp up production on another fighter jet — the F-35 — as well as two cargo planes could save many jobs at the Marietta plant, which does work on those planes as well.


Quote    Reply


mustang22       4/29/2009 5:14:48 PM




There is no reason why the USAF isn't going to buy the full 1700+ F-35's plus.



 

Im sure someone said the same thing about the F-22 in 1991 when the AF thought they were going to buy 750. Now, unless Congress wishes to purchase more we are left with 187. Before 2035 the actual number of F-35's will change probably 10 times. I wonder if a change in doctrine will have anything to do with that?






REASON. If the REASON for 1700+ F-35s changes just like the REASON for > 187 Raptors did then YES. But then that would be justified as was the F-22 cap. This is not a hard concept to understand. Whats different about 1991 and 2009? Again, REASONS.







 

-DA 

You can use pretty yellow highlighter all you want but you implied that there was NO REASON why the AF would not purchase that many indicating that YOU cannot see just cause for the AF not building  anything less than 1700 regardless of timeframe. I'm sure we all understand if a nuclear war wiped out the planet that there are circumstances that would change how many were built Darth, I was merely stating that someone probably made a similar comment about the Raptor in 1991.
If I make a statement such as there is no reason why the New York Giants will not win the next super bowl then I am essentially guaranteeing a victory, meaning that all the pieces will fall into place and no matter what happens during the course of the season it will not affect the outcome.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 5:41:13 PM
Beazzz,

Look, I CLEARLY stated that this was my opinion, I cited examples when my opinions have proven correct, I told you that I HEARD AND DID NOT DISMISS YOUR POINT OF VIEW, however, I disagree and use different standards. Why not just agree to disagree and just move on? What the hell does it matter to you that I, ME, think that an F-35 cost 80 mil? Just say, nah, I dont think so, and move on. Why do you feel in necessary to attempt to insult me for being a soldier as some mindless zombie because I don't agree with you? Don't worry about feeling sorry for me. Just up the level of maturity in your debate and don't digress down the path of darkness that makes people take personal when an anonymous person on the internet disagrees with some trivial issue.

You think F-35 cost 100-200 million or so, FINE. I disagree and say 80 mil.

You think the F-22 is the best fighter and don't want it cut, FINE. I disagree and think it should be.

You think SecDef Gates is wrong and setting us up for failure, FINE. I dont.

You think we will not buy 1700 + F-35, FINE. I disagree and see that the USAF has published and not changed plans for that number.


What's so hard about that concept of debate? Why is it necessary for me to be arrogant and for you to refer to my military career in a derogatory manner because I don't share your view? Who is exactly being arrogant again? Geez man grow up and get over it. It's OK for people to see things differently. Are you old enough to remember Bobby Brown? It's "my prerogative" to believe what I will. You don't have to agree at all. In fact, just do as I have done with you. Accept that we disagree and let whatever data you have in support stand on it's own.

 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 5:47:32 PM


There is no reason why the USAF isn't going to buy the full 1700+ F-35's plus.



Im sure someone said the same thing about the F-22 in 1991 when the AF thought they were going to buy 750. Now, unless Congress wishes to purchase more we are left with 187. Before 2035 the actual number of F-35's will change probably 10 times. I wonder if a change in doctrine will have anything to do with that?


REASON. If the REASON for 1700+ F-35s changes just like the REASON for > 187 Raptors did then YES. But then that would be justified as was the F-22 cap. This is not a hard concept to understand. Whats different about 1991 and 2009? Again, REASONS.



-DA 


You can use pretty yellow highlighter all you want but you implied that there was NO REASON why the AF would not purchase that many indicating that YOU cannot see just cause for the AF not building  anything less than 1700 regardless of timeframe. I'm sure we all understand if a nuclear war wiped out the planet that there are circumstances that would change how many were built Darth, I was merely stating that someone probably made a similar comment about the Raptor in 1991.

If I make a statement such as there is no reason why the New York Giants will not win the next super bowl then I am essentially guaranteeing a victory, meaning that all the pieces will fall into place and no matter what happens during the course of the season it will not affect the outcome.

Wrong, what I said is that as things stand now, we will be getting 1700 F-35s. That was a rather direct statement of fact. If however, circumstances dictate A REASON for buying more or less, that is a decision to be made at that time and the mitigating factor is that the people making that decision are likely to be qualified enough to do so.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/29/2009 8:05:30 PM

Beazzz,




Look, I CLEARLY stated that this was my opinion, I cited examples when my opinions have proven correct, I told you that I HEARD AND DID NOT DISMISS YOUR POINT OF VIEW, however, I disagree and use different standards. Why not just agree to disagree and just move on? What the hell does it matter to you that I, ME, think that an F-35 cost 80 mil? Just say, nah, I dont think so, and move on. Why do you feel in necessary to attempt to insult me for being a soldier as some mindless zombie because I don't agree with you? Don't worry about feeling sorry for me. Just up the level of maturity in your debate and don't digress down the path of darkness that makes people take personal when an anonymous person on the internet disagrees with some trivial issue.




You think F-35 cost 100-200 million or so, FINE. I disagree and say 80 mil.




You think the F-22 is the best fighter and don't want it cut, FINE. I disagree and think it should be.




You think SecDef Gates is wrong and setting us up for failure, FINE. I dont.




You think we will not buy 1700 + F-35, FINE. I disagree and see that the USAF has published and not changed plans for that number.







What's so hard about that concept of debate? Why is it necessary for me to be arrogant and for you to refer to my military career in a derogatory manner because I don't share your view? Who is exactly being arrogant again? Geez man grow up and get over it. It's OK for people to see things differently. Are you old enough to remember Bobby Brown? It's "my prerogative" to believe what I will. You don't have to agree at all. In fact, just do as I have done with you. Accept that we disagree and let whatever data you have in support stand on it's own.




 







-DA 
Da, you are doing it again. I don't *think* the F35 cost $100-$200 mil. The very chart you presented shows this. That is what I am talking about. You simply ignore what does not suit your stance as if it is not even there. It is IN YOUR artcile DA. I guess it matters to me for the same reason you insist on saying it doesn't? Why does anyone on any of these forums say anything about anything then?
DA, I assure you I am older then you and I know arrogance when I see it. I have worked around arrogant people my entire FAA career. But never have I saw it displayed in the manner in which you strut it out. As for being deragatory about your military service, well you are dead wrong again. I don't know of anyone that respects the military and what they do more then me. It's just the manner in which you are always 100% in line with superiors no matter what it may be. That is simply NOT possible in the real world. I have always felt sorry for young men and women that were not able to have their own mind and speak it and that is now how I feel is what you are is all. It's nothing personal and certainly not meant as an insult to the military. I honesly do feel sorry for you on a human level DA, as I would anyone that was not allowed to be free to have their own thoughts. I simply cannot fathom not having my own mind and own thoughts and being able to state them any time, anywhere and to anyone.  No insult intended.
 
Anyhow I now understand you completely and no need for me at least to continue any further with this. Again, best of luck with your military career.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/29/2009 9:59:20 PM





We have posters claiming that UCAVs aren't mature enough for this or that. Well I can tell you that is laughable. Sure, just ike any new program they aren't perfect. But the USA could field IOC UCAVs in the next 5 years capable of doing ANY mission a manned fighter does. That is of course my opinion and I am in a position to know that. Feel free to disagree of course as this is an opinion based on technologies I've seen some of which are freakin public knowledge.



-DA

Is an F22 a manned fighter???--yes I think so-actually it is undeniable.

HERALD WAS AS USUAL RIGHT when he made his statement about your statement that an F22 can be replaced by a UCAV in 5 years.You owe Herald an apology for calling him a liar as well as all the others here you are so keen to dismiss.

Maybe you owe me $100 too.

My 2 cents and I am NO EXPERT


Read more carefully next time you drop in to start a flame war. I didn't say ANYTHING about replacing the F-22 with a UCAV. In fact I clearly said, which you didn't mention, WE NEED F-22. What I above is we can field UCAV technology capable of doing any mission. Air to Air, Air to Ground, SEAD, DEAD, NTISR, CAS and RECCE. The MQ-9 DOES a lot of what we used manned fighters for. But it is not a complete replacement. It is you who owes the apology. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    ANOTHER HERALD FLAME   4/29/2009 10:23:31 PM

AGAIN, ANOTHER BASELESS FLAME/TROLL POST FROM A PERSON OUT TO VOICE A GRUDGE IN A PUBLIC FORUM OVER A DIFFERENCE IN POLITICAL VIEWS.

Herald, maybe you might want to read more closely so that you don't miss that fact that I was referring to specific types of cruise missile performance and Brahmos is only an example. But it's obvious you aren't here to actually contribute any meaningful dialogue. Get over it dude. You are making yourself look very immature, petty and small.

-DA 


You claimed that they exist., NAME THEM.

When you fail, and you will, I will illustrate yet again what you DON'T know, poster. 

Herald


 
Another falsehood. I addressed "types of missiles" and I never said as of this date and when I elaborated, I made it clear. I was even clear with regard to when Sub and Air launched Brahmos could be expected. Moreover, Why would any of this be relevant to the debate? The 60 extra F-22s you are mentioning for your CONUS idea haven't been built yet so why would we use THIS DATE when the USAF doesn't have the platform density to do what you proposed...lol. You need to be looking at the timeframe where a hypothetical 243 F-22 fleet is fully mission capable. 

Nice try Herald but you need to get over this senseless personal beef and just debate the topic. I can see your strawman arguments a mile away. You aren't capable of illustrating what I don't know because you are too focused on initiating an argument rather than debating the topic. If you let go of this spirit of hate and emotion you have and explain logically your points within the bounds of the rules CIVILY. You might be surprised how much WE BOTH could learn from each other. In any event the data I put up clearly shows massive holes in your defensive perimeter against all class of threat.
 
 
-DA





 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Bandying words.   4/30/2009 10:38:28 AM




AGAIN, ANOTHER BASELESS FLAME/TROLL POST FROM A PERSON OUT TO VOICE A GRUDGE IN A PUBLIC FORUM OVER A DIFFERENCE IN POLITICAL VIEWS.




Herald, maybe you might want to read more closely so that you don't miss that fact that I was referring to specific types of cruise missile performance and Brahmos is only an example. But it's obvious you aren't here to actually contribute any meaningful dialogue. Get over it dude. You are making yourself look very immature, petty and small.




-DA 






You claimed that they exist., NAME THEM.




When you fail, and you will, I will illustrate yet again what you DON'T know, poster. 




Herald






 

Another falsehood. I addressed "types of missiles" and I never said as of this date and when I elaborated, I made it clear. I was even clear with regard to when Sub and Air launched Brahmos could be expected. Moreover, Why would any of this be relevant to the debate? The 60 extra F-22s you are mentioning for your CONUS idea haven't been built yet so why would we use THIS DATE when the USAF doesn't have the platform density to do what you proposed...lol. You need to be looking at the timeframe where a hypothetical 243 F-22 fleet is fully mission capable. 




Nice try Herald but you need to get over this senseless personal beef and just debate the topic. I can see your strawman arguments a mile away. You aren't capable of illustrating what I don't know because you are too focused on initiating an argument rather than debating the topic. If you let go of this spirit of hate and emotion you have and explain logically your points within the bounds of the rules CIVILY. You might be surprised how much WE BOTH could learn from each other. In any event the data I put up clearly shows massive holes in your defensive perimeter against all class of threat.

 

 

-DA














 



 




Quoting the poster......"types of missiles" then he trotted out Brahmos as his example and then posted a sales blurb as to sustain his incorrect assertions, and false conclusions. (How very like a certain class of unqualified poster). . If there are other types of missile like Brahmos, NAME THEM, and stop running away when challenged on this point. If there are submarine launched Brahmos missiles show them in weapon proof testing (not expected for at least two to five years) or retract that false assertion
 
Goes directly to poster's technical competence on topic.
 
Flame post? False argument. Deadly accurate challenge as to competency.
 
The poster contun ues to red herring, straw man and he rins from the direct point everyu tome he is challenged.
 
Name the missilers and quantify the claimjs or retract them. In fact quantify the whole 187 F-22 limit or abandon that argument altogether.  If the poster cannot support it by the nimbers and RUN THE NUMBERS as I've done five times, then he might as well admit that he has no case and abandon it in defeat. 
 
 By the numbers; and name the missiles.
 
 
Herald


 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Grow Up   4/30/2009 11:52:43 AM
Herald,

Not interested in a chest beating contest with you. When you tone down, show some respect, ditch the "The Poster" crap, stop the flaming and insults, I'll discuss issues with you as I do everyone else. 700+ responses and 30000+ views. There are plenty of others here interested enough in the topic that I don't have to waste time arguing your logical fallacies and playing "gotcha" games on the internet. When you are ready to discuss this as an adult and without getting personal, I'm game. I don't hold grudges. Until then you can just follow my post and threads.

-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