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       5/11/2009 10:00:33 AM
Herald,

None of your conclusions here have been valid and if not for the vitriol and abuse of board policy not to behave like a total adolescent when dealing with others you would have nothing to say here. As SysOps, Warpig, Rocky, JFKY, DJim, Bluewings and plenty of other people including myself have asked you, check yourself. We don't come here to read your online emotional outburst. Thats why people don't want to post ideas in here because no one wants an online troll tearing them down after they have gone through the trouble of sharing something. This is a forum not your personal technical review. Seriously, its going too far. I've shown you far more courtesy than you deserve considering your behavior and I'm not about to lower the bar for the sake of a joust with you. DEBATE THE TOPIC, ELABORATE ON YOUR POSITIONS AND STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHAT I KNOW BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. 


Thanks
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Edited out the needless personal vitriol   5/11/2009 10:31:26 AM

There is NOTHING NEW being developed, except for a few existing demos-not even wind tunnel or computer sims for a sixth generation launch platform. That fundoing is ZILCH. Just read what you cited and ask if there is ONE brand new program? Even the scramdart, (the X-51) is in danger of termination under that fool, Gates. 

So get REAL, poster DarthAmerica.


Who's not being real? We have a history of introducing new platforms this way, the black budget is the size of other nations entire defense budget and there is a definite requirement for platforms with PACRIM geography specific performance. Why do you think proposals such as FB-22 or B-1R get floated around? Nothing new being developed? That's just plain willful denial of  facts and history...

 

 Or how about...




 

Let me also add that I see that the poster finally tried to argue off the map and still got it wrong. Well for that ignorant poster's comment let me tell him with extreme sarcasm, that the Bomb Widow, he denigrated, was as I worked it out going to be what is called a ten hour bomber.

 
Great! And since we know such platforms are under development at least as concepts, then it seems we are on the right track. I have never been against a platform with these capabilities. NOT EVER. I just do not think the FB-22 or Bomb Widow represents the best technology path to achieve it. I can and have articulated why and without injecting adolescent rhetoric into my very detailed logic. Other than to call anybody who doesn't agree with you stupid or incompetent you have provided absolutely no support whatsoever or even just a humble explanation of your concept.


What that means specifically was that the combat radius was four hours at cruise to the munitions release points from base sortie. A modified YF-23 would have given us that.      

Sure, and so will other ideas. Some clearly more modern and capable.
 

Long before this poster ever looked at the problems, I did in detail. I noted such things as why the US put ABMs and radars in Europe where it did (orbital mechanics), why the PRCs adopted a blackmail as opposed to an open confrontation strategy, why Guam was the weak link in the US PacRIM defense and why a ten hour bomber was necessary.

And I'm sure in your mind it all makes perfect sense. However you need to communicate that to us in english, not vitriol and be prepared for others to have their own views and ideas.
 

I don't need lessons from a late to the party readbacker on things I already know far better than he ever will. (Seriously SWITCHBLADE as an option? ROTFLMAO!)


The F-22 needs tanker support coming back, but it has the reach going in and coming out. Combat radius is understated.

I was one of the first to say this on this website years ago and that was based on a lot of work on
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/15/2009 1:23:36 AM

Air Force Leaders Chart Way Forward for Service

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2009 ? The Air Force has made tough choices and some prudent trade-offs to balance the service across the spectrum of capabilities needed for the future, Air Force leaders said.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz discussed the service?s efforts to balance between today?s operations and tomorrow?s needs. The two spoke to a group of reporters in the Pentagon today. 

The service is working to balance the missions from irregular warfare on one end of the spectrum of conflict to nuclear deterrent operations on the other. 

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates agreed with an Air Force recommendation to retire early 250 older aircraft, to allow the service to reprogram money to other areas. ?[The decision] allows us to take some additional strategic risk over the next six to seven years, which we think, given the threat environment and the current strategic interests, is a good time to take this risk,? Gates said. 

The service will reinvest the money into modifying the remaining aircraft, improving munitions and moving manpower into new high-demand requirements. These requirements include unmanned aerial vehicles, the nuclear enterprise and in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. 

?At the same time, we also focused on the future of the tactical air force structure and on fifth generation solutions,? Donley said. ?Our interest is in getting on with the Joint Strike Fighter program.? 

The service ultimately will buy more than 1,700 of these aircraft. The fiscal 2010 budget request looks to increase testing of the aircraft and buying 30. 

The Air Force also intends to go ahead with F-22 modifications, budgeting more than $1 billion for it in fiscal 2010, Donley said. ?We think this is a good package for the Air Force and that it makes good strategic sense,? he said. 

The secretary also highlighted the Air Force acquisition improvement plan, which began after the General Accountability Office found the service erred in its contract for the new tanker. 

The first component of the plan is to strengthen and improve the acquisition workforce. The Air Force is to hire about 2,000 employees over the next year; provide additional training to all acquisition personnel; and beef up systems engineering and cost analysis capabilities. 

A second area of emphasis is to pay more attention to requirements and to ensure Air Force officials understand the technology risks involved in meeting operator demands for more capabilities. 

A third area for improvement is financial stability, and a fourth is a stronger source selection process. ?This is where we make the final procurement decisions and the Air Force has already started retraining personnel for this highly visible portion of the acquisition,? Donley said. 

The final area reviews the Air Force organizational structure

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    S^2 D^2    5/15/2009 12:27:39 PM
Nothing new or credible posted since I last checked in.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/15/2009 1:32:16 PM
The Congressional Business Office's Alternatives for Modernizing U... is out.
 
Some interesting options in there with actual numbers to back them up.  Some of the scenarios don't make sense (e.g. reducing the number of F-35s in favor of additional F/A-18E/Fs and new F-16Es, which would increase the cost of the F-35s) but others are pretty interesting.  Of interest to the scenario that I was proposing is that the study examines canceling the JSF altogether and how to deal with the ramifications of that.  Not really going to beat that drum any more, but it's fun reading.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/22/2009 12:34:19 PM

US Air Force sees risk in halting F-22 production

Thu May 21, 2009 2:49pm EDT
 

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 12:50:53 PM




Mustang,
 
You are misinterpreting that article. Endorsement IS AGREEMENT. That doesn't mean that the USAF would not like more F-22's. What it means is that the USAF also recognizes that the risk is greater by procuring more given other priorities. It's WORTH IT to the USAF to accept a moderate to high risk force of 187 and reorganize the way the fighter fleet is structured and use the 13 billion needed to reach 243 on other MORE IMPORTANT and IMMEDIATE CONCERNS. He is also acknowledging that the decision is correct even if painful. This is a good time to take the additional risk given that the risk we would be taking right now are controllable and the likelihood of a threat requiring more Raptors is extremely low.
 
-DA





 









 





 




 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/22/2009 1:27:16 PM
Schwartz, who Gates put ion to quell the Fighter Mafia, said the need was for 243, and that the risk to the fleet (as in total air force) without 243 was moderate to severe.
 
Quit splicing words to weasel your way out of your own incompetent presentation, poster. Even Gates own handpicked man said 243 was the number minimum SAFE margin.   Endorsement my left foot.
 
QED. When even your own "guy" says you are full of cowflop and in it up to your neck besides, its time to break out the bugle, blow it over you and bury in it completely.
 
Discredited by the last "strawman" the poster called upon to prop up an error filled argument he fronted
 
When even the appeal to authority fails as the authority contradicts then the original thesis is negated by even the fallacy arguments..  .
 
Its political the number is.
 
Herald

.    
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/22/2009 1:56:08 PM
Endorsement IS AGREEMENT
 
BS. If I endorse a decision my boss makes because I am either a kiss ass or I want to keep my job knowing full well that myself and the rest of the employees do not agree with it then there is a big difference.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/22/2009 2:07:20 PM

Schwartz, who Gates put ion to quell the Fighter Mafia, said the need was for 243, and that the risk to the fleet (as in total air force) without 243 was moderate to severe.

 

Quit splicing words to weasel your way out of your own incompetent presentation, poster. Even Gates own handpicked man said 243 was the number minimum SAFE margin.   Endorsement my left foot.

 

QED. When even your own "guy" says you are full of cowflop and in it up to your neck besides, its time to break out the bugle, blow it over you and bury in it completely.

 

Discredited by the last "strawman" the poster called upon to prop up an error filled argument he fronted

 

When even the appeal to authority fails as the authority contradicts then the original thesis is negated by even the fallacy arguments..  .

 

Its political the number is.

 

Herald





.    



No, I'm afraid the only incompetent presentation is by you. But you have made a habit lately to misinterpret military matters so I understand this latest misunderstanding. Get it through your head. Heralds Assertions do not=Fact. Gates "Hand Picked Man" did not say anything like what you suggest. He said that he 187 is the number he is going with considering other priorities. I can post his own words to back that up unlike you.
 
-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