Sec. Gates proposes an end to the F-22 Program

[BigRob]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has proposed capping the number of F-22's at 187. Regardless of what you think of this number, in his "overhaul" he also would scale back the FCS program and focus on "lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan."

John McCain offered praise for these moves by stating:

"It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow"

I have to question just what the "emerging threats of tomorrow" really are. I firmly believe that terrorism is not the major security challenge that the United States is going to face in the next decade.

Proliferation of "rouge" states, as well as the resurgence of Russia and the rise of China are the major future challenges that I see. Certainly terrorism will be a problem, the biggest of which will be biological terrorism, but I do not see it as the major threat we will face.

In the same proposal Gates has the F-35 program continuing. The F-35 is simply not as quality as an airplane as the F-22, but it certainly does have its benefits, so you can somewhat see the logic.

On top of all of this, while the F-22 is quite the airplane, the wave of the future for air dominance will come in unmanned fighters. These fighters would be able to be constructed similar to the F-22 but would be able to travel at speeds that no human could take in the cockpit.

Given these proposed cuts to future weapons system, I think we should be asking ourselves if our shift in focus to terrorism is leaving us vulnerable to other emerging strategic challenges. We should ensure that our military has the capability to focus on multiple threats at once, and do all of them effectively.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

while I know the F-22, and know what a truly great weapons platform it is, I cant say I know as much about the f-35. The Biggest advantage for the f-22 is that it truly lets a fighter pilot fight, and not worry about flying. The amount of mental power taken just to fly most fighters is a majority of mental power, with the rest to the actual fighting going on. The F-22 almost reverses this, giving a huge edge before even counting weapons, speed and mobility....personally I think that is where the future for now lies, not in unmanned planes. Unless the speeds and mobility are just that much better, I foresee maned planes being the key still with no computer program able to match a good pilot. In time will it happen, most likey...but we also have to keep in mind that China and Russia dont are hurt by this world econ as well, and we outspend both combined as it is. If we cant stay ahead of them, its not going to be due to we did not spend enough, its that we spent to much on things we did not need.

As far as terrorism being the fight the US will have for the next generation of warfare...I think it will be a key that will take up the majority of our time the next 10-15 years ...but I don't see the next major threat as being one that we will will win with better fighters and better tanks...but better computers. The 4rth Generation of warfare ( 3rd being terrorism.2nd modern aka wwII..and first being more early WWI) will be with done more and more with hacking systems, and causing chaos with a nations systems ..Power, money, telecommunications...and other such things. of course the threat of a major nation going to war with us will always be there, but it to me still is unlikely do to the interconnections in the word econ...and the basic fact that any major war like that will be very very bad , very fast for both sides and no one will come out ahead, but will just lose. Of course that does not mean we dont stand on guard for it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Budget Press Briefing (Arlington, VA)
As Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Arlington, VA, Monday, April 06, 2009


Today, I am announcing the key decisions I will recommend to the president with respect to the fiscal year 2010 defense budget. The president agreed to this unorthodox approach – announcing the department’s request before the White House submits a budget to the Congress – because of the scope and significance of the changes. In addition, the president and I believe that the American people deserve to learn of these recommendations fully and in context, as the proposed changes are interconnected and cannot be properly communicated or understood in isolation from one another. Collectively, they represent a budget crafted to reshape the priorities of America’s defense establishment. If approved, these recommendations will profoundly reform how this department does business.







http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/dod-speech-090406.htm

as I just got off work have not got to read this all yet, but felt it could be of value here.

 

[BigRob]

while I know the F-22, and know what a truly great weapons platform it is, I cant say I know as much about the f-35. The Biggest advantage for the f-22 is that it truly lets a fighter pilot fight, and not worry about flying. The amount of mental power taken just to fly most fighters is a majority of mental power, with the rest to the actual fighting going on. The F-22 almost reverses this, giving a huge edge before even counting weapons, speed and mobility....personally I think that is where the future for now lies, not in unmanned planes. Unless the speeds and mobility are just that much better, I foresee maned planes being the key still with no computer program able to match a good pilot. In time will it happen, most likey...but we also have to keep in mind that China and Russia dont are hurt by this world econ as well, and we outspend both combined as it is. If we cant stay ahead of them, its not going to be due to we did not spend enough, its that we spent to much on things we did not need.

I agree the F-22 is a legit fighter. The F-35 has a slightly different role and is similar (not as good though) but has been designed to sell to allies as well, since we do not want to sell them the F-22 technology.

I agree unmanned is not going to happen overnight, but the future will be in unmanned in my opinion and not in airplanes such as the F-22. One major concern of mine as well is our nuclear force. We are faced with an aging force structure and we are banning ourselves from testing new warheads, or even building new warheads, which I think we will need.

As far as terrorism being the fight the US will have for the next generation of warfare...I think it will be a key that will take up the majority of our time the next 10-15 years ...but I don't see the next major threat as being one that we will will win with better fighters and better tanks...but better computers. The 4rth Generation of warfare ( 3rd being terrorism.2nd modern aka wwII..and first being more early WWI) will be with done more and more with hacking systems, and causing chaos with a nations systems ..Power, money, telecommunications...and other such things.

Cyber security is going to be a major problem. However, the best computers in the world will be rendered totally useless by an EMP attack. China is weaponizing EMP today that is non-nuclear. If they have this capability, they could detonate an EMP (or multiple) in space to eliminate our satellite technology, rendering us almost powerless. I think an over-reliance on computers, especially as China pursues that option, is a mistake. I think in this regard we need to establish a declaratory policy that we will view the use of EMP as a nuclear first strike, requiring a full retaliation as such.

of course the threat of a major nation going to war with us will always be there, but it to me still is unlikely do to the interconnections in the word econ...and the basic fact that any major war like that will be very very bad , very fast for both sides and no one will come out ahead, but will just lose. Of course that does not mean we dont stand on guard for it.

I do not really buy into the economic dependency theory personally. I would argue that if you look back in history, especially in Europe, economies were often heavily connected and still massive wars still occurred. For example, look at the 30 years war. I would argue before this war, the economies of Europe were as connected as they have been in modern times, and yet massive war still erupted.

As you point out, we cannot bank on this, and we must prepare for the worst.

 

[Bunz]

In short, keep the F-22. They are the baddest thing flying today, no question. I get to see them routinely. For someone who is an aviation nerd, watching that bird fly is nearly better than girls wearing fur bikinis.

I had the pleasure of watching this performance firsthand the following day, from the best viewing area along the flightline. I was way more impressed with a single F-22 than the entire Thunderbird Troupe, and I like the T-birds.

 

[BigRob]

In short, keep the F-22. They are the baddest thing flying today, no question. I get to see them routinely. For someone who is an aviation nerd, watching that bird fly is nearly better than girls wearing fur bikinis.

No doubt this plane is unmatched in the sky today. I only question the 187 number. Personally I would push for more, but such is the nature of budgets. I know there is a 'Dear Colleague" going around Congress pushing for the program to continue, but we will have to see how that plays out in the upcoming budget battle.

In the coming years however, I still think unmanned tops the F-22. The problem I suppose for our future competitors will be the need to eliminate the F-22 before it gets airborne. If you want to classify China as the rising challenge (and I think we should) then the problem needs to be addressed of protecting the staging sites for the F-22. Should we launch an F-22 attack against China, I would predict the Chinese response would not be to go out and dogfight, but rather a massive attack on the launching bases, resulting in a serious problem for the F-22's that are airborne.

 

[Bunz]

Rob did you watch the clip?

 

[BigRob]

Rob did you watch the clip?

Yes, I did. It is a legit airplane, and I agree we should not cap the program at 187. However, the next generation of air systems is going to unmanned in my opinion. Imagine the F-22 with no pilot. The speed that it could generate, while performing the same or better, would blow its current form out of the water in my view.

I also think we need to seriously ensure the protection of their staging areas when deploying them.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No doubt this plane is unmatched in the sky today. I only question the 187 number. Personally I would push for more, but such is the nature of budgets. I know there is a 'Dear Colleague" going around Congress pushing for the program to continue, but we will have to see how that plays out in the upcoming budget battle.

In the coming years however, I still think unmanned tops the F-22. The problem I suppose for our future competitors will be the need to eliminate the F-22 before it gets airborne. If you want to classify China as the rising challenge (and I think we should) then the problem needs to be addressed of protecting the staging sites for the F-22. Should we launch an F-22 attack against China, I would predict the Chinese response would not be to go out and dogfight, but rather a massive attack on the launching bases, resulting in a serious problem for the F-22's that are airborne.

china is a threat as or right now, only in so much as of the taiwan issue. China has not really been known as a aggressive nation in terms of its military in modern times. They have supplied others, but only time we or any other major power has fought them in any major way was Korea...and that was a issue of protection of itself, and arrogance on our part. Even if China was on par with our military, it stands to gain nothing by fighting the US. And any American dumb enough to think we should try to invade china...well should just be shot. Don'T fight land wars in Asia...its just a smart rule..

And as for the f-35, its going to be replacing quite a few platforms, though I will miss that lowly bad ass A-10...most tank like thing ever to take flight...and with its multi use, low maintenance, specs...should be a long term cost saver as costs to keep those planes up to date and able to work still ..many well past how many flight hours they where to be able to take as it is...But I think its just realistic that we cant keep spending money on every military system we want...with this econ.

The USSR of Putin...I mean Russia...is the only one fear a major conflict with any time in the next 15-20 years...mostly do to both sides pushing for dominance in the balkans and also central Asia ( such as Georgia) But overall our main fighting I think will keep being low to mid level insurgency and terrorism. I would spend more money in tying up nukes, materials, and ensuring better records, security, and such in the Former USSR, and even here in the US. And of course better develop our human Intel, especially in the Arabic, Farsi areas...stop firing them for being gay, would be a nice start...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In short, keep the F-22. They are the baddest thing flying today, no question. I get to see them routinely. For someone who is an aviation nerd, watching that bird fly is nearly better than girls wearing fur bikinis.

I had the pleasure of watching this performance firsthand the following day, from the best viewing area along the flightline. I was way more impressed with a single F-22 than the entire Thunderbird Troupe, and I like the T-birds.

to be fair the blue angles where always better....

 

[GenSeneca]

The administration is preparing us for the Progressive Military of Next Tuesday.

Canceling the F-22 is a mistake... cancel Pelosi's jet instead and put her in one of the new Envirofighters.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Given these proposed cuts to future weapons system, I think we should be asking ourselves if our shift in focus to terrorism is leaving us vulnerable to other emerging strategic challenges. We should ensure that our military has the capability to focus on multiple threats at once, and do all of them effectively.

.....AND (at the same time), eliminate the post-Eisenhower HUSTLE!​

"Calmly and methodically, he posed a direct challenge to the military-industrial complex.

Gates, blunt and at times ruthless, seems ready for the guerrilla insurgency the contractors and lawmakers will mount. Walking into the briefing room with black folder, black tie and black suit, he skipped even a "good afternoon" before plunging into his announcement; at his side, providing military cover for his plan, was a no-nonsense Marine general known as "Hoss."

"In the coming weeks, we will hear a great deal about threats and risks and danger to our country and to our men and women in uniform, associated with different budget choices," Gates warned."​

Sounds like a Bring-It-On-challenge to Big Dick Cheney, and other such paranoids!!!

​

"A $160 billion Army system of combat vehicles, flying sensors and bomb-hunting robots would be reduced, too, as would plans to build a shield of missile interceptorshttp://www.allhatnocattle.net/gwmissiletoy.jpg to defend against attacks by rogue countries.

The recommendations are the product of Gates' frustration at weapons systems that take on lives of their own, even when their missions are no longer relevant or costs balloon. The frustration extends to military services and defense contractors accustomed to measuring success by how big a piece of the budget pie they can claim."​

 

[BigRob]

Sounds like a Bring-It-On-challenge to Big Dick Cheney, and other such paranoids!!!
​

In my opinion, revamping the military to focus on small threats like such Afghanistan or Iraq is basically revamping the military to tackle yesterday's threats, not the threats of tomorrow.​

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

In my opinion, revamping the military to focus on small threats like such Afghanistan or Iraq is basically revamping the military to tackle yesterday's threats, not the threats of tomorrow.

I completely agree. We are going to need the capability to fight multiple enemies at once whether it be NK, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, or even the Russians. If we get locked in to tunnel vision with Afghanistan someone is gonna slip in and hit us from behind. Gates I believe is no longer doing what he believes is right, but rather doing what he has to do to keep his job. For the Sec. of Defense to be more concerned about job security than protecting the country is dangerous.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I completely agree. We are going to need the capability to fight multiple enemies at once whether it be NK, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, or even the Russians. If we get locked in to tunnel vision with Afghanistan someone is gonna slip in and hit us from behind.