Obama proposes to cut funds to the F-22 and other military projects.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llama64

War has changed. The enemies of the USA don't fly fighter jets, they drive scooters with C4 strapped to them. Why spend billions on hardware that is completly ineffectual against the current day threat?

And war will change again. We've seen how fast the concepts and strategies of war changes. It wasn't that long ago that we look looking a piece meal strategies involving mass armor and air superiority. Now we're fighting insurgencies that don't represent nation states. But those nation states are out there, they're still advancing standardized military technology at a rapid rate.

Who knows, in 5 to 10 years we could be fighting a nuclear armed Iran, or see NK making a final suicidal run at North Korea. The Russians who are frantically trying to upgrade their air force capabilites could come back, or China might finally decide that the time has come to take back Taiwan.

I certainly hope that the use of Nuclear weapons in the hands of the U.S. never becomes a first strike option or tool that your alluding too.

Frankly the U.S. as the predominant military force on the planet and the first one called in a time of war doesn't have the option to specialize their military spending. they have to be able to answer all contingencies whether its terrorist based or nation based. They need to have a balanced flexible military that can react to different scenarios, and that means that they have to overcome a lot of those difficulties by having a massive advantage in fire power delivery.

It used to be in the 80's that the American's had a mandate to be able to fight at least two major wars and 3 holding or peace keeping actions at the same time, they're to the point now where they can barely fight two regional battles at the same time.

They don't have the quick strike capabilities that they used to have. And their logistical sciences aren't as formidable as they used to be.

The cutting of military spending is the wrong message at the wrong time in a unstable world where somebody is going to take advantage. If Obama is going to cut spending maybe he should look at his stimulus package thats basically spending a lot of money on lame duck companies, instead of going after industries that are actually surviving and showing efficiencies and employing people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by llama64

War has changed. The enemies of the USA don't fly fighter jets, they drive scooters with C4 strapped to them. Why spend billions on hardware that is completly ineffectual against the current day threat?

Your statement is false. CAS is VERY important to the Special Ops teams operating in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I point you to two examples.

Remember the five man Specials Forces team that infiltrated deep into northern Iraq during Operation Desert Storm? Some kids got lucky and stumbled on their hidey-hole. Shortly thereafter, a whole company of Iraqi infantry showed up. The only reason those five guys are still alive today is because of F-16's in a CAS role dropping weapons on the bad-guy's heads within 200 meters of the good-guys.

Remember the Company of Rangers in Vietnam? As many were killed by our own fighters dropping bombs danger close as were killed by North Vietnamese Regulars.

While air power alone can not and will not ever win a war, you're going to see American casualties go up drastically without total Air Superiority to make CAS possible.

The F-22 is a superior fighter that gives those SpecOps teams CAS wherever the operate.

While I would agree that the US probably doesn't need 400 F-22s in the Air Force, at least not right not, lets no kid ourselves. Planes like the F-22 give the boots on the ground a distinct advantage. With the ability to pinpoint exactly where the bombs are supposed to land, US, Canada, and NATO can save lives by using CAS to wipe out any chance of an advantage the enemy might have.

Just reading through the Wikipedia page on the F-16, the fighter jet has been used in Afghanistan since 2001, providing CAS almost daily.....and in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, ALSO providing CAS.

Not exactly the "hardware that is completly ineffectual against the current day threat."

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Interesting tibit
With stealth being the future, so are anti/counter stealth technology. China has been experimenting with new radar and weapon systems based on "cellular" technology that has some success in detecting stealthed objects.

Also, the main advantage right now with the States is the ability to integrate real time intelligence into the battle field. F-22's, F-35's, Commanche's,..etc all have the ability to plug into a digital network that allows information, targetting data, strategies, and other intelligence in real time.

Very similar to the IVIS system that the U.S. military has in their tanks and armored vehicles.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Um... Unless I am missing a part of Gates career? He was never involved with Iraq before he was named Secretary of Defense in 06.

Yeah, for 06-07 he was running the show in Iraq, the same year that the Iraq Study Group called the situation...."grave and deteriorating."

In 2007, David Petraeus was made commander of the MNF, and employed the 'surge' strategy that basically turned things around.

A lot of people feel Gates didn't try to turn things around, and basically let the current plan that wasn't working just continue its course.

Also, someone called him a Republican. Gates has never been registered to either party and has voted both ways.

Yeah, noticed that earlier. I'm not saying the guy hasn't done a good job. Obviously if Obama holds him over in one of the more important cabinet positions, he does know his stuff.

[Azure]

From Wikipedia....the program cancellation...

The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs, with production beginning in 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft, which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion.[12]

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. This cost reflects the F-22 total program cost, divided by the number of fighters the Air Force is programmed to buy; and which has so far invested $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost", is already spent and is separate from money used for future decision-making, including procuring a copy of the jet. The Unit Procurement Cost was estimated at $177.6 million in 2006 based on a production run of 181 airframes.[13] This unit cost will decrease if total production is higher. This cost includes $3.233 billion already spent on research and development by 2006.[14]

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $138 million;[4] decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases.[12]

F-22 Raptors over Utah in their first official deployment, October 2005.

The F-22 is not the most expensive aircraft aloft. That distinction likely belongs to the roughly $1.157 billion (1998 USD) per unit B-2 Spirit,[15] whose orders went from 132 to 21 when the Cold War ended thus making the unit cost skyrocket, though the incremental cost was under US$1 billion. The F-22 uses fewer radar absorbent materials than the B-2 or F-117 Nighthawk, which is expected to translate into lower maintenance costs.

On 31 July 2007, Lockheed Martin received a multiyear contract for 60 F-22s worth a total of US$7.3 billion.[10][16] The contract brings the number of F-22s on order to 183 and extends production through 2011.[10]
During the two-month grounding of nearly 700 older F-15s in November and December 2007, some US Senators demanded that Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England release three government reports that support additional F-22 Raptors beyond the planned 183 jets.[17] The USAF has requested that the F-22 remain in production after the 183 planned fighters. This is believed to be a response to the recent grounding of F-15A-D fighters.[18]

In January 2008, the Pentagon announced that it would ask Congress for funds to buy additional F-22s to replace other aircraft lost in combat, and proposed that $497 million that would have been used to shut down the F-22 line instead be used to buy four more F-22s, keeping open the production line beyond 2011 and providing the next Presidential administration the option to buy even more F-22s.[19] The funds earmarked for the line shutdown, however, were directed by Pentagon Comptroller Tina W. Jonas on 17 December 2007, to be used to fund repairs to the F-15 fleet caused by the worldwide grounding of that aircraft in November 2007. This diversion had the same effect of postponing the decision to shut down the F-22 production line until at least 2009.[20][21] On September 24, 2008, US Congress passed a defense spending bill with funding for F-22 long lead items for future production.[22] On November 12, 2008, the Pentagon released $50 million of the $140 million approved by Congress to buy parts for an additional four planes, thus leaving the Raptor program in the hands of the incoming Obama Administration.[23] Additional funds to complete the four planes will be provided in a future war supplemental bill, which would bring the total planes procured to 187.

In February 2009, Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, used the F-22 as an example of what he believed to be unnecessary military spending, and seemed to propose cutting funding for the project entirely: "[S]ome of the arguments you've been hearing now about how government spending never helps the economy, you're going to hear the absolute reverse when military spending comes up. We have an airplane, the F-22, that is designed to defeat the Soviet Union in a war, and I think we can save billions."[24] Frank has advocated reducing the overall military budget of the United States by 25%.[25]

On April 6, 2009, as part of the 2010 Pentagon budget announcement, Secretary of Defense Gates called for production of the F-22 to be phased out by fiscal year 2011, leaving the USAF with 187 fighters.[6]

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Azure

The F-22 is a superior fighter that gives those SpecOps teams CAS wherever the operate.

While I would agree that the US probably doesn't need 400 F-22s in the Air Force, at least not right not, lets no kid ourselves. Planes like the F-22 give the boots on the ground a distinct advantage. With the ability to pinpoint exactly where the bombs are supposed to land, US, Canada, and NATO can save lives by using CAS to wipe out any chance of an advantage the enemy might have.

I was under the impression that the F-22 is purely an air superiourity fighter. It has 3 internal bays, 2 of them for air to air. The final bay would be for ground ordinance. However, it may be more useful to use the A-10, F-16s, F-15E strike eagles for CAS situations

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

I was under the impression that the F-22 is purely an air superiourity fighter. It has 3 internal bays, 2 of them for air to air. The final bay would be for ground ordinance. However, it may be more useful to use the A-10, F-16s, F-15E strike eagles for CAS situations

Again, from Wikipedia....

but has multiple capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.

[Bobblehead]

A story in the Dallas News about the cuts.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.4a5049c.html

Gates is trying to reshape the military to be able to fight small counterinsurgent wars instead of the Cold War-era slugfests envisioned decades ago.

About 135 from the original order have been built, meaning 52 remain to be built if Gates' budget wishes become law and stay that way in coming years. The Air Force wanted more than 300 F-22s.

Compare that to the Pentagon's big plans for the F-35. Gates wants 2,443 of them, and global demand could push the total production run past 4,500, a backlog that could mean decades of good-paying work for Lockheed employees in North Texas.

[Azure]

4,500 F-35s? Wow. How many is Canada supposed to get?

I'm sure Lockheed is going to play the political angle as much as possible.....because more F-22s = more money for them.

[LChoy]

I stand corrected

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

I stand corrected

Well, technically the F-16s can still provide good CAS......provided they don't fall out of the sky because their frame is falling apart.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

4,500 F-35s? Wow. How many is Canada supposed to get?

As far as I have ever seen Canada hasn't actually ordered any.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, technically the F-16s can still provide good CAS......provided they don't fall out of the sky because their frame is falling apart.

The F-35s are going to take over ALL the roles of the current fleet. They are supposed to start rolling off production lines in 2010, so there is no chance that the F-16s are going to start falling out of the skies because of age.

Originally Posted by Lchoy

I was under the impression that the F-22 is purely an air superiourity fighter. It has 3 internal bays, 2 of them for air to air. The final bay would be for ground ordinance. However, it may be more useful to use the A-10, F-16s, F-15E strike eagles for CAS situations

The F-22 is intended for a ground attack role only against enemy AA/radar installations/C&C installations from my understanding. Due to their extreme stealth and avoidance capabilities, they are suited for this role, but using one against ground troops or armor is not in the picture. They wouldn't be particularly effective anyway, and their huge speed/altitude advantage would be thrown away flying low and slow to take on targets of this nature, rendering them vulnerable.

It would be like using your Lamborghini to pull a camper, the wrong tool for the job entirely.

[LChoy]

That was my thoughts initially, but wasn't sure if the ground attack variant was more specialized.

[Cowperson]

The always entertaining Ralph Peters on this topic:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04072009...ops_163248.htm

Cowperson

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Yeah, giving current allies our top aircraft has never backfired before...

In what way was that a backfire? I don't recall any US losses to Iranian F-14's.

I meant NATO allies anyways, not governments the US propped up during the cold war.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

In what way was that a backfire? I don't recall any US losses to Iranian F-14's.

I meant NATO allies anyways, not governments the US propped up during the cold war.

Mostly I just meant that you never know who your friends will be in 15 years. Aside from the UK and you folks up north, at least.

On an unrelated note...
Do you folks really think there's going to BE a next generation of manned fighters after the F22 and F35? As people have said, I hate to see the F22 cut, but its partly because I have an affinity for the plane. On a similar note, the ever increasing use of unmanned aircraft is only going to keep growing, and just because people feel nostalgic for manned fighters doesn't mean the military is going to ignore the advantages of not having a pilot. Weight savings from not having life support systems, displays, ejection seat, etc, plus a much higher tolerance for high-G maneuvers, plus the ever important political aspect of fewer potential casualties...

I'm afraid during our lifetimes we'll see the end of the "fighter pilot," aside from those using joysticks and computers on the ground.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

In what way was that a backfire? I don't recall any US losses to Iranian F-14's.

I meant NATO allies anyways, not governments the US propped up during the cold war.

That's because while the U.S. sold the pre-revolutionary Iranian government the hardware, they withheld any capability to support it or any technical data. After the revolution, they did everything they could to prevent Iran from getting any parts or help with the hardware or avionics and basically the Iranian fleet of F-14s just mothballed away and slowly became useless.

It's like Dell selling a computer to your grandparents and then cutting off their tech support line.

Technology today is in any case, much more advanced than in the mid-70s and there's much more concern with leaking technology or hardware or even software to foreign countries. Heck, the U.S. Congress repeatedly blocked Britain (their biggest partner in the F-35 program, not to mention historical ally and friend) from technology transfer and the source code to the F-35 so they could maintain and support them or modify them for themselves!

What the U.S. probably needs more than an air superiority fighter is a new fighter for the bomber role. There's been talk of the Strike Raptor or whatever as a bomber variant of the F-22 but that's probably all puffs of smoke now. Also talk of resurrecting the YF-23 for that sort of thing. I always liked the YF-23 better. None of these programs will probably come to fruition. To save money, they'll probably just strap more bombs to F-15s and make them Strike Eagles and prolong their use a few more decades.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's because while the U.S. sold the pre-revolutionary Iranian government the hardware, they withheld any capability to support it or any technical data. After the revolution, they did everything they could to prevent Iran from getting any parts or help with the hardware or avionics and basically the Iranian fleet of F-14s just mothballed away and slowly became useless.

It's like Dell selling a computer to your grandparents and then cutting off their tech support line.

Technology today is in any case, much more advanced than in the mid-70s and there's much more concern with leaking technology or hardware or even software to foreign countries. Heck, the U.S. Congress repeatedly blocked Britain (their biggest partner in the F-35 program, not to mention historical ally and friend) from technology transfer and the source code to the F-35 so they could maintain and support them or modify them for themselves!

.

That and the fact that Lockheed embedded order 66 in the source code.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

I'm afraid during our lifetimes we'll see the end of the "fighter pilot," aside from those using joysticks and computers on the ground.

True, that drones will be more numerous in the future but you will always need pilots in planes to make decisions, to communicate with other planes, and to be able to make their own choices when cut off from home base and communications. When you have a fighter sent up to intercept an unknown plane or a hijacked plane or bomb threat or anything... there are many instances where you want a pilot there who is able to make a critical decision based on his experience and what he sees versus what ground control sees through cameras or situations where they might lose contact/control with a drone/unmanned plane.