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    Softwar    4/7/2009 4:06:55 PM
1) All this is tangential to the central question, "What would you give up to pay for another 60 F-22's?"
2) With oil prices halved the Iranian government can not afford to Have nuclear weapons AND subsidies.  That's what I've read....when oil was $150 a barrel, yes they could.  Nowadays, not so much...
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 4:10:45 PM

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ability to work together with the conservative-controlled parliament (Majlis) to devise economic policies that not only address the current crisis, but also partially transform Iran's subsidies-addicted economy will be critical in creating a more harmonious and less partisan political environment in the next few months. If this happens Ahmadinejad's re-election is assured.

 

Corruption is endemic to the regime.  To wean the economy off of subsidies is going to INCREASE prices, and unrest, and probably increase unemployment, in the short-run.  IF the Iranians were willing to arrest those in power who are corrupt, and were willing to dramatically increase fuel and food prices, and probably increase interest rates, in short if Iran was willing to undergo the 1982 Recession, then Iran will emerge stronger.  It's doubtful, though that Ahmadinejad, the Majlis and the populace are willing to undergo the mutual pain that, that requires.

 

As it is from what I have read Iran faces high unemployment and double-digit inflation.  Iran can continue to function, but at a low rate of economic growth, less than population growth...yielding decreasing average income, and incresing unemployment...on top of a authoritarian and corrupt government that has lost much of its legitimacy.


Once again - all the more reason to add more F-22s - the keys here are how nationalistic, how well armed and how willing to close the Straits of Hormuz in a time of crisis.
 
The Iranians have not slowed their efforts to obtain the SA-20 to protect the Shahab-3 launch sites and their nuke program.  The Iranians have not slowed deployment of Chinese anti-ship missiles along the Straits.  They continue to collaborate with North Korea and China on missile development.  None of these are affected by the financial terms.
 
Instability in the government only means more likelyhood of conflict - not less.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 4:14:53 PM

1) All this is tangential to the central question, "What would you give up to pay for another 60 F-22's?"

2) With oil prices halved the Iranian government can not afford to Have nuclear weapons AND subsidies.  That's what I've read....when oil was $150 a barrel, yes they could.  Nowadays, not so much...



If you want to go back a few posts - I already answered your question (e.g. can the Army Future fighting vehicle program).  I guess you missed that.  Of course, the more money we sink into the Army boondoggle - the less for others to use.  Canning the program will not make the Army any more vulnerable and it could make them seek off the shelf solutions at a fraction of the billions it will take to complete the project.
 
Again, as I posted - and Janes supports - the financial situation in Iran will not effect their nuke program.  They have the reserve money to cover it and missiles as well.  You forget - the missiles and nukes are exportable - so these are profit making adventures. 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    JFKY - I posted this as well...   4/7/2009 4:16:55 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....
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Except Softwar   4/7/2009 4:22:02 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.
 
Quote    Reply

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



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