Gates to cancel the F-22

[DavidS]

Defense chief to propose weapons cuts

And instead, favor production of close to 2500 F-35's.

Wtf do we need 2,443 F-35's for?

There were only around 300 F-15E Strike Eagles created. Yes, we built over 4000 F-16's, but with the invention of UAV drones, we can do the same job with a drone that an F-35 can do and not spend nearly as much.

 

[WorldAHope]

Defense chief to propose weapons cuts

And instead, favor production of close to 2500 F-35's.

Wtf do we need 2,443 F-35's for?

There were only around 300 F-15E Strike Eagles created. Yes, we built over 4000 F-16's, but with the invention of UAV drones, we can do the same job with a drone that an F-35 can do and not spend nearly as much.

The Byzantine hidden universe of Defense Contracting needs to be much more transparent and responsive to public and military needs.

It is one of the largest pieces of our budgetary pie, and has too many secrets and too many lobbyist fingers making the deals, and making millions for themselves.

Obama maentioned a few weeks ago that he is determined to reduce military spennding on costly weapons sytems, but the defense contracting industry is adept at positioning the production and support of contracts/systems to bring campaign funds and jobs to congressional districts.
Meaning, the military NEED is not the only primary reason too many contracts are awarded.
It is hard to eliminate some weapons systems contracts without causing unemployment.
The Defense lobby and contractors know how to protect their geese that lay golden (taxpayer purchased) eggs.

We already have the world's best fleet of the world's best fighters.
Is it absolutely necessary that we need to spend tens and hundreds of billions (of borrowed funds) to develop and build the world's next generation of most expenseive jets
that we can't afford ?

What foe are the F35s designed to combat ? F22s ?
Remember the lessons of WW2. The American and Russian tanks were far outclassed by Germany's premier tanks, which were technological and engineering marvels.
But the Sherman and T34 were victorious because they were simple to make and operate and maintain, reliable, more manuverable, and most of all - plentiful.

We could carry the fight to the mountains of Afghanistan-Pakistan with drones, or with
other airborne manned propeller driven ordnance vehicles.

The B-52 has lasted 50+ years, with continual upgrades.
Our existing Fighters, teh best in the world, should be extended the same.

Having the best military doesn't require us to have the most unnecessarily wastefully expensive, despite what the Defense contractors insist.
Time to put a stop to this gravy train. We can't afford to carry them anymore.

 

[Diuretic]

I heard something about this on radio the other day. The discussion was how the military should be configured for current and future threats. I think the assumption was that wars between nations is unlikely (that's what I heard, I have no particular expertise in this area) so the hardware can be changed because the threats aren't from nations any longer, they're from terrorists and insurgents.

 

[Xenophon]

Remember the lessons of WW2. The American and Russian tanks were far outclassed by Germany's premier tanks, which were technological and engineering marvels.
But the Sherman and T34 were victorious because they were simple to make and operate and maintain, reliable, more manuverable, and most of all - plentiful.

Incorrect.

The T-34 was years ahead of German armor, the first tank they constructed to match it was the Pzkw V Panther, a full two years into the war with the Soviets (1943).

By that time the Soviets up gunned the T 34 and it could again outclass Panthers, and the JS series introduced in 1944 could knock out panthers before they could reach engagement range.

 

[Xenophon]

I heard something about this on radio the other day. The discussion was how the military should be configured for current and future threats. I think the assumption was that wars between nations is unlikely (that's what I heard, I have no particular expertise in this area) so the hardware can be changed because the threats aren't from nations any longer, they're from terrorists and insurgents.

It's similar to the ideas after the great war when Britain came up with the '10 year rule' stating that no new equipment would be purchased unless a war was forseeable within the next ten years.

It caused Britain to retard weapons development and lead to inferior designs when WWII started in everything except single seat interceptors (spitfire mk1)

 

[Skull Pilot]

You do realize that military weapons development not only ensures our military superiority but the technology inevitably winds up in the public domain and makes our lives better as well.

Military technology, the top secret kind, is routinely 7-10 years ahead of what we call state of the art. I like it that way don't you? We should be considered the strongest nation with the best weapons and I do not believe we should share those weapons and technology with anyone, not even our so called allies.

So you ask why do we spend so much on military weapons and development, when other countries do not? The answer is simple, those countries cannot take care of themselves and look to the strongest most advanced military in the world. Ours.

If you want us to give up our superiority, who do you want to count on for military aid, France?

 

[DavidS]

You do realize that military weapons development not only ensures our military superiority but the technology inevitably winds up in the public domain and makes our lives better as well.

Military technology, the top secret kind, is routinely 7-10 years ahead of what we call state of the art. I like it that way don't you? We should be considered the strongest nation with the best weapons and I do not believe we should share those weapons and technology with anyone, not even our so called allies.

So you ask why do we spend so much on military weapons and development, when other countries do not? The answer is simple, those countries cannot take care of themselves and look to the strongest most advanced military in the world. Ours.

If you want us to give up our superiority, who do you want to count on for military aid, France?

I agree - military superiority - not military waste. We're getting thousands of F-35s which will likely become the workhorse of the military while our enemies are still trying to deal with how to overcome an F-16 in combat.

There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.

 

[Xenophon]

I wouldn't count on that, those Falcons are extremly old and the tech is known all over because we sold them all over.

 

[editec]

I heard something about this on radio the other day. The discussion was how the military should be configured for current and future threats. I think the assumption was that wars between nations is unlikely (that's what I heard, I have no particular expertise in this area) so the hardware can be changed because the threats aren't from nations any longer, they're from terrorists and insurgents.

It's similar to the ideas after the great war when Britain came up with the '10 year rule' stating that no new equipment would be purchased unless a war was forseeable within the next ten years.

It caused Britain to retard weapons development and lead to inferior designs when WWII started in everything except single seat interceptors (spitfire mk1)

Wow!

Now I am seriously impressed that you knew about that arcane bit of history, Xeno.

You must have read quite your fair share of pre-WWII history to have uncovered that gem, (and remembered it, and understood why it's an important bit of information, too.)

Given that level of understanding about that subject, let me suggest that you may enjoy Buchanan's new book about the world wars. "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unececessary War".

Now I am not saying that Buchanan's book is the definitive book on the subject, but it is, I think, an interesting take on how personality and circumstance conspire to change the world.

I'm thinking you'll find this an interesting read.

 

[tigerbob]

There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.

That has a nice patriotic ring to it, but it's bullshit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You do realize that military weapons development not only ensures our military superiority but the technology inevitably winds up in the public domain and makes our lives better as well.

Military technology, the top secret kind, is routinely 7-10 years ahead of what we call state of the art. I like it that way don't you? We should be considered the strongest nation with the best weapons and I do not believe we should share those weapons and technology with anyone, not even our so called allies.

So you ask why do we spend so much on military weapons and development, when other countries do not? The answer is simple, those countries cannot take care of themselves and look to the strongest most advanced military in the world. Ours.

If you want us to give up our superiority, who do you want to count on for military aid, France?

I agree - military superiority - not military waste. We're getting thousands of F-35s which will likely become the workhorse of the military while our enemies are still trying to deal with how to overcome an F-16 in combat.

There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.

Wrong, the Indian Air force beat the US Air force in top gun exersizes a few years ago.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.

That has a nice patriotic ring to it, but it's bullshit.

that wasn't my quote so aim your comments somewhere else

 

[Xenophon]

Wow!

Now I am seriously impressed that you knew about that arcane bit of history, Xeno.

You must have read quite your fair share of pre-WWII history to have uncovered that gem, (and remembered it, and understood why it's an important bit of information, too.)

Given that level of understanding about that subject, let me suggest that you may enjoy Buchanan's new book about the world wars. "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unececessary War".

Now I am not saying that Buchanan's book is the definitive book on the subject, but it is, I think, an interesting take on how personality and circumstance conspire to change the world.

I'm thinking you'll find this an interesting read.

I have been meaning to read that for some time, PB always has an interesting take on history.

I have had it in my mind that ever since the fall of the Soviets it sort of been a replay of the teens and early 1920s played out for us in the 1990s and early 21th century.

Clinton played the role of Britain, reducing the huge military and claiming he only needs 'colonial' forces so to speak, just as Loyd geroge did after the armisistce.

Bush played the role of the late 20s and early 30s GB, fighting crippling colonial wars for dubious reasons and here comes Obama to play the part of the baldwin-Chamberlin era.

The end result was another disaster, WWII, I hope it doesn't go that far, but it could, this time it will be the end of the American empire, not the british, and for the same reason, exhausted and broke fighting a long war.

 

[tigerbob]

That has a nice patriotic ring to it, but it's bullshit.

that wasn't my quote so aim your comments somewhere else

Yes, I noticed I'd screwed it up, and have now corrected it. It was a genuine mistake. My apologies for the offense I appear to have caused.

 

[tigerbob]

You do realize that military weapons development not only ensures our military superiority but the technology inevitably winds up in the public domain and makes our lives better as well.

Military technology, the top secret kind, is routinely 7-10 years ahead of what we call state of the art. I like it that way don't you? We should be considered the strongest nation with the best weapons and I do not believe we should share those weapons and technology with anyone, not even our so called allies.

So you ask why do we spend so much on military weapons and development, when other countries do not? The answer is simple, those countries cannot take care of themselves and look to the strongest most advanced military in the world. Ours.

If you want us to give up our superiority, who do you want to count on for military aid, France?

I agree - military superiority - not military waste. We're getting thousands of F-35s which will likely become the workhorse of the military while our enemies are still trying to deal with how to overcome an F-16 in combat.

There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.

Wrong, the Indian Air force beat the US Air force in top gun exersizes a few years ago.

...not to mention...

In 2005, a trainer Eurofighter T1 was reported to have had a chance encounter the previous year with two U.S. Air Force F-15Es over the Lake District in the north of England. The encounter became a mock dogfight with the Eurofighter allegedly emerging victorious.

In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, the Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. Singapore still went on to buy the F-15 due to uncertainty over Typhoon tranche 2 delivery dates.

During the exercise "Typhoon Meet" held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. It is claimed that the Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) without suffering losses.

Eurofighter Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoadVirus]

Defense chief to propose weapons cuts

And instead, favor production of close to 2500 F-35's.

Wtf do we need 2,443 F-35's for?

There were only around 300 F-15E Strike Eagles created. Yes, we built over 4000 F-16's, but with the invention of UAV drones, we can do the same job with a drone that an F-35 can do and not spend nearly as much.

Gates wants to scrap the F-22 for the more expensive F-35? WTF?

I can see the logic at cutting military purchases for stuff that doesn't adapt to who we are now fighting. We aren't being threatened by a bunch of communists with submarines with nuclear-tipped missiles. We're fighting a bunch of religion-inspired whackjobs who live in caves and shacks & carry AK-47s and RPGs.

 

[manu1959]

You do realize that military weapons development not only ensures our military superiority but the technology inevitably winds up in the public domain and makes our lives better as well.

Military technology, the top secret kind, is routinely 7-10 years ahead of what we call state of the art. I like it that way don't you? We should be considered the strongest nation with the best weapons and I do not believe we should share those weapons and technology with anyone, not even our so called allies.

So you ask why do we spend so much on military weapons and development, when other countries do not? The answer is simple, those countries cannot take care of themselves and look to the strongest most advanced military in the world. Ours.

If you want us to give up our superiority, who do you want to count on for military aid, France?

I agree - military superiority - not military waste. We're getting thousands of F-35s which will likely become the workhorse of the military while our enemies are still trying to deal with how to overcome an F-16 in combat.

There isn't one country, including China, that couldn't be outmatched by a good USAF pilot in a 30-year old F-16.

Wrong, the Indian Air force beat the US Air force in top gun exersizes a few years ago.

the indians fly migs ... no?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Donnelly and Schmitt Say Budget Cuts by Barack Obama and Robert Gates Will Gut the Military - WSJ.com

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a significant reordering of U.S. defense programs. His recommendations should not go unchallenged.

In the 1990s, defense cuts helped pay for increased domestic spending, and that is true today. Though Mr. Gates said that his decisions were "almost exclusively influenced by factors other than simply finding a way to balance the books," the broad list of program reductions and terminations suggest otherwise. In fact, he tacitly acknowledged as much by saying the budget plan represented "one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity" -- the "necessity" of course being the administration's decision to reorder the government's spending priorities.

However, warfare is not a human activity that directly awards virtue. Nor is it a perfectly calculable endeavor that permits a delicate "balancing" of risk. More often it rewards those who arrive on the battlefield "the fustest with the mostest," as Civil War Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest once put it. If Mr. Gates has his way, U.S. forces will find it increasingly hard to meet the Forrest standard. Consider a few of the details of the Gates proposals:

- The termination of the F-22 Raptor program at just 187 aircraft inevitably will call U.S. air supremacy -- the salient feature, since World War II, of the American way of war -- into question.

The need for these sophisticated, stealthy, radar-evading planes is already apparent. During Russia's invasion of Georgia, U.S. commanders wanted to fly unmanned surveillance aircraft over the region, and requested that F-22s sanitize the skies so that the slow-moving drones would be protected from Russian fighters or air defenses. When the F-22s were not made available, likely for fear of provoking Moscow, the reconnaissance flights were cancelled.

As the air-defense and air-combat capabilities of other nations, most notably China, increase, the demand for F-22s would likewise rise. And the Air Force will have to manage this small fleet of Raptors over 30 years. Compare that number with the 660 F-15s flying today, but which are literally falling apart at the seams from age and use. The F-22 is not merely a replacement for the F-15; it also performs the functions of electronic warfare and other support aircraft. Meanwhile, Mr. Gates is further postponing the already decades-long search for a replacement for the existing handful of B-2 bombers.

- The U.S. Navy will continue to shrink below the fleet size of 313 ships it set only a few years ago. Although Mr. Gates has rightly decided to end the massive and expensive DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer program, there will be additional reductions to the surface fleet. The number of aircraft carriers will drop eventually to 10. The next generation of cruisers will be delayed, and support-ship projects stretched out. Older Arleigh Burke destroyers will be upgraded and modernized, but at less-than-needed rates.

The good news is that Mr. Gates will not to reduce the purchases of the Littoral Combat Ship, which can be configured for missions from antipiracy to antisubmarine warfare. But neither will he buy more than the 55 planned for by the previous Bush administration. And the size and structure of the submarine fleet was studiously not mentioned. The Navy's plan to begin at last to procure two attack submarines per year -- absolutely vital considering the pace at which China is deploying new, quieter subs -- is uncertain, at best.

- Mr. Gates has promised to "restructure" the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, arguing that the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have called into question the need for new ground combat vehicles. The secretary noted that the Army's modernization plan does not take into account the $25 billion investment in the giant Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles. But it's hard to think of a more specialized and less versatile vehicle.

The MRAP was ideal for dealing with the proliferation of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Iraq. But the FCS vehicle -- with a lightweight yet better-protected chassis, greater fuel efficiency and superior off-road capacity -- is far more flexible and useful for irregular warfare. Further, the ability to form battlefield "networks" will make FCS units more effective than the sum of their individual parts. Delaying modernization means that future generations of soldiers will conduct mounted operations in the M1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles designed in the 1970s. Finally, Mr. Gates capped the size of the U.S. ground force, ignoring all evidence that it is too small to handle current and future major contingencies.

- The proposed cuts in space and missile defense programs reflect a retreat in emerging environments that are increasingly critical in modern warfare. The termination of the Airborne Laser and Transformational Satellite programs is especially discouraging.

The Airborne Laser is the most promising form of defense against ballistic missiles in the "boost phase," the moments immediately after launch when the missiles are most vulnerable. This project was also the military's first operational foray into directed energy, which will be as revolutionary in the future as "stealth" technology has been in recent decades. The Transformational Satellite program employs laser technology for communications purposes, providing not only enhanced bandwidth -- essential to fulfill the value of all kinds of information networks -- but increased security.

Mr. Gates justifies these cuts as a matter of "hard choices" and "budget discipline," saying that "[E]very defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk . . . is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in." But this calculus is true only because the Obama administration has chosen to cut defense, while increasing domestic entitlements and debt so dramatically.

The budget cuts Mr. Gates is recommending are not a temporary measure to get us over a fiscal bump in the road. Rather, they are the opening bid in what, if the Obama administration has its way, will be a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop. But what is true for the wars we're in -- that numbers matter -- is also true for the wars that we aren't yet in, or that we simply wish to deter.

Mr. Donnelly is a resident fellow and Mr. Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. They are co-editors of "Of Men and Materiel: the Crisis in Military Resources" (AEI, 2007).

 

[Diuretic]

the indians fly migs ... no?

Would have evened up Wounded Knee.

 

[Diuretic]

Donnelly and Schmitt Say Budget Cuts by Barack Obama and Robert Gates Will Gut the Military - WSJ.com

On Monday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a significant reordering of U.S. defense programs. His recommendations should not go unchallenged.

In the 1990s, defense cuts helped pay for increased domestic spending, and that is true today. Though Mr. Gates said that his decisions were "almost exclusively influenced by factors other than simply finding a way to balance the books," the broad list of program reductions and terminations suggest otherwise. In fact, he tacitly acknowledged as much by saying the budget plan represented "one of those rare chances to match virtue to necessity" -- the "necessity" of course being the administration's decision to reorder the government's spending priorities.

However, warfare is not a human activity that directly awards virtue. Nor is it a perfectly calculable endeavor that permits a delicate "balancing" of risk. More often it rewards those who arrive on the battlefield "the fustest with the mostest," as Civil War Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest once put it. If Mr. Gates has his way, U.S. forces will find it increasingly hard to meet the Forrest standard. Consider a few of the details of the Gates proposals:

- The termination of the F-22 Raptor program at just 187 aircraft inevitably will call U.S. air supremacy -- the salient feature, since World War II, of the American way of war -- into question.

The need for these sophisticated, stealthy, radar-evading planes is already apparent. During Russia's invasion of Georgia, U.S. commanders wanted to fly unmanned surveillance aircraft over the region, and requested that F-22s sanitize the skies so that the slow-moving drones would be protected from Russian fighters or air defenses. When the F-22s were not made available, likely for fear of provoking Moscow, the reconnaissance flights were cancelled.

As the air-defense and air-combat capabilities of other nations, most notably China, increase, the demand for F-22s would likewise rise. And the Air Force will have to manage this small fleet of Raptors over 30 years. Compare that number with the 660 F-15s flying today, but which are literally falling apart at the seams from age and use. The F-22 is not merely a replacement for the F-15; it also performs the functions of electronic warfare and other support aircraft. Meanwhile, Mr. Gates is further postponing the already decades-long search for a replacement for the existing handful of B-2 bombers.

- The U.S. Navy will continue to shrink below the fleet size of 313 ships it set only a few years ago. Although Mr. Gates has rightly decided to end the massive and expensive DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer program, there will be additional reductions to the surface fleet. The number of aircraft carriers will drop eventually to 10. The next generation of cruisers will be delayed, and support-ship projects stretched out. Older Arleigh Burke destroyers will be upgraded and modernized, but at less-than-needed rates.

The good news is that Mr. Gates will not to reduce the purchases of the Littoral Combat Ship, which can be configured for missions from antipiracy to antisubmarine warfare. But neither will he buy more than the 55 planned for by the previous Bush administration. And the size and structure of the submarine fleet was studiously not mentioned. The Navy's plan to begin at last to procure two attack submarines per year -- absolutely vital considering the pace at which China is deploying new, quieter subs -- is uncertain, at best.

- Mr. Gates has promised to "restructure" the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, arguing that the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have called into question the need for new ground combat vehicles. The secretary noted that the Army's modernization plan does not take into account the $25 billion investment in the giant Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles. But it's hard to think of a more specialized and less versatile vehicle.

The MRAP was ideal for dealing with the proliferation of IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Iraq. But the FCS vehicle -- with a lightweight yet better-protected chassis, greater fuel efficiency and superior off-road capacity -- is far more flexible and useful for irregular warfare. Further, the ability to form battlefield "networks" will make FCS units more effective than the sum of their individual parts. Delaying modernization means that future generations of soldiers will conduct mounted operations in the M1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles designed in the 1970s. Finally, Mr. Gates capped the size of the U.S. ground force, ignoring all evidence that it is too small to handle current and future major contingencies.

- The proposed cuts in space and missile defense programs reflect a retreat in emerging environments that are increasingly critical in modern warfare. The termination of the Airborne Laser and Transformational Satellite programs is especially discouraging.

The Airborne Laser is the most promising form of defense against ballistic missiles in the "boost phase," the moments immediately after launch when the missiles are most vulnerable. This project was also the military's first operational foray into directed energy, which will be as revolutionary in the future as "stealth" technology has been in recent decades. The Transformational Satellite program employs laser technology for communications purposes, providing not only enhanced bandwidth -- essential to fulfill the value of all kinds of information networks -- but increased security.

Mr. Gates justifies these cuts as a matter of "hard choices" and "budget discipline," saying that "[E]very defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk . . . is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in." But this calculus is true only because the Obama administration has chosen to cut defense, while increasing domestic entitlements and debt so dramatically.

The budget cuts Mr. Gates is recommending are not a temporary measure to get us over a fiscal bump in the road. Rather, they are the opening bid in what, if the Obama administration has its way, will be a future U.S. military that is smaller and packs less wallop. But what is true for the wars we're in -- that numbers matter -- is also true for the wars that we aren't yet in, or that we simply wish to deter.

Mr. Donnelly is a resident fellow and Mr. Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. They are co-editors of "Of Men and Materiel: the Crisis in Military Resources" (AEI, 2007).

A whole tranche of USAF senior officers are now pissing themselves about their post USAF career options.