[Igor Antunov]

Makes sense, considering the nature of warfare the US is engaged in.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled Monday a defense budget geared toward fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It proposes to end a controversial Air Force stealth-fighter program and to restructure a costly Army combat system while increasing spending on counterinsurgency and expanding the force.

The only Republican holdover from the Bush administration, Mr. Gates made bold proposals that are likely to run up against entrenched defense-industry interests and members of Congress alike, pushing to fundamentally reshape Pentagon spending, which he believes has been out of balance for many years.

"If approved, these recommendations will profoundly reform how this department does business," he said Monday at the Pentagon.

Gates will end the Air Force's F-22 Raptor program, leaving it with 187 airplanes that cost anywhere between $140 million a piece – and as much as $350 million when research and development is taken into account. The move was not unexpected, since Gates had hinted that the F-22, which has not been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan, is geared toward potential threats from a "near peer" adversary such as China rather than current needs.

Gates will also restructure the Army's Future Combat System, a $160 billion program of vehicle sensors and other equipment that has run over cost and has yet to fully prove itself useful in a counterinsurgency environment.

Gates also cancelled the $6.5 billion presidential helicopter program that would have bought 23 new helicopters for the president. That program, also over budget, was scrapped altogether. Gates said an effort to replace the fleet would start anew in 2011.

But the Pentagon's $534 billion budget for fiscal 2010 will contain billions in spending that is relevant to today's conflicts.

Gates announced $2 billion for remote-controlled aircraft and other intelligence assets to support troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, $500 million for more helicopters needed in both war theaters, and another $500 million to train and equip foreign militaries.

He is also proposing to expand Special Operations forces by about 5 percent to assist in counterinsurgency operations as well as some of the foreign-military training seen as key in the effort against extremism.

Gates also announced that he would end the Army's creation of more units called "brigade combat teams" – units more appropriate for conventional warfare. He said that if these units were allowed to expand further, they would leave the Army spread too thin.

In unveiling the entire budget all at once, Gates has taken an unorthodox approach to the Pentagon budget. In this case, he revealed his thinking on major defense programs ahead of President Obama's official, detailed budget that will be unveiled late this month or in early May in order to give the American public the context for understanding his proposals.

Gates acknowledged that his budget reflects a broad overhaul of defense acquisition and strategy.

"It is one thing to speak generally about the need for budget discipline and acquisition and contract reform," said Gates. "It is quite another to make tough choices about specific systems and defense priorities based solely on the national interest and then stick to those decisions over time."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0406/p02s07-usmi.html

And further articles:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD97D8B500

Well 187 of these will be built, that's enough.

[Douglas]

It's a two sided coin though.

To say that we don't need expensive hi-tech stuff like stealth planes because of our current engagements is worrying. We may one day need it and we should be ready for that possibility. There is no point in 10 years time having to kick start a similar program because we are suddenly fighting that kind of war again and are struggling behind the opposition.

[Igor Antunov]

Yes, but reality is, it costs more money to build and maintain than other effective alternatives. So why do so if it's unique characteristics are not momentarily needed? Why not keep it and improve it over time in limited numbers, and if war breaks out ramp up production. It's not like America has direct threats for the forseeable future. It makes complete sense to keep these luxury toys limited in number until truly needed. And even then something overly expensive should never be the backbone of any military.

[Douglas]

So why do so if it's unique characteristics are not momentarily needed?

Because we do not know what the future brings. What's the scouting motto again?

Why not keep it and improve it over time in limited numbers, and if war breaks out ramp up production

Because that will take time and we will get our arses handed to us in the mean time.

It's not like America has direct threats for the forseeable future.

It didn't see pearl harbour or 9-11 coming either.

We need to have the ability to react as best as possible to an unknown future.

[Igor Antunov]

We need to have the ability to react as best as possible to an unknown future.

But you also have limited resources to work with, so, decisions decisions. One can't be 100% prepared in every possible area.

[Dr House]

Already posted

[Falx]

We may one day need it and we should be ready for that possibility.

Jesus Christ you illiterates:

Air Force's F-22 Raptor program, leaving it with 187 airplanes

He's just not ordering any more of the things given they are worse than useless in the current wars.

[Douglas]

In current wars...... maybe. In future wars..... noone knows.

[Falx]

Which fucking means that the US still has 187 fucking F-22's on top of about 2000 4 and 4.5th generation fighters. 10 times the size of the Chinese and Russian fleets and still some times bigger than the whole combined European fleet.

[Igor Antunov]

10 times the size of the Chinese and Russian fleets

no

[Douglas]

187 is hardly a vast amount of fighters. 4th generation fighter are exactly that, soon to be out of date. Air superiority is what wins wars.

[Falx]

Well then I guess we're lucky since the US beats every country in the world by 187 5th generation planes then.

no

Ugh, I knew someone was going to read the wording wrong, Russians or Chinese.

[Douglas]

Well then I guess we're lucky since the US beats every country in the world by 187 5th generation planes then.

But the rest of the world won't be stopping it's production at less than 200.

[Truth-a-naut]

How many of the JSFs are they still going to build? I remember it being as "a lot".

[MB.]

JSF should be canceled and more Harrier 2s built



>

[Thunderhawk]

Does the current price tag for the 187 planes include the full fixed costs of production, R&D, start up, etc..?
Or will their price go up to compensate for the cancellation of future orders?

[Piano Red]

Jeez, another one of these threads?

Igor Antunovic

no

Russia has no 5th Gen fighter aircraft, and despite all the hubbub the PAK-FA has yet to materialize.

Douglas

187 is hardly a vast amount of fighters.

Its enough for now, and (as stated), gives the US an almost unbeatable lead in 5th Gen aircraft in service when compared to anyone else.

The F-22 line can always be re-started if some US rival wants to play the arms race game again.

But the rest of the world won't be stopping it's production at less than 200.

The rest of the world hasn't it even started with 1 yet.

[Captain Sam]

F-35 won't be canceled, why would Lockheed cancel it and why would the US cancel its funding? If for some reason the US canceled its funding, there are still many other NATO nations which have already poured lots of funding into the program. The US couldn't justify cutting the F-35.

I imagine this discontinuation of the F-22 doesn't mean that no more F-22s will ever be produced, just that the US won't be buying/producing anymore for itself. There are many NATO nations which have already ordered F-22s from Lockheed Martin to be built. Canada alone has already ordered many F-22s to replace the CF-18 Hornet. It'll be replacing the Hornet in 2017.

[MB.]

Canada alone has already ordered many F-22s to replace the CF-18 Hornet. It'll be replacing the Hornet in 2017.

Source. I emailed the Minister of Defense and begged him to buy these:



He said he'd consider it once the superhornets were all delivered.

[Captain Sam]

MB, you can use Google, can't you?
Anyway, I might of exaggerated just a little.
It's proposed to replace it in 2017, however nothing official has been made, gawd.

I'm sure it isn't too hard to google Maclean's.

And ya, Canada has invested $475 million (USD) in the F-35.