Gates Brings the Hatchet

[Bando]

Sec. Def. Robert Gates laid out his budget plans today, and he cut quite a lot of programs including:

• the F-22
  
• the new presidential helicopter
  
• the next gen aircraft carrier
  
• Future Combat Systems
  
• the next gen cruiser
  
• the new Air Force tanker
  

It looks like buys of the Joint Strike Fighter and the Littoral Combat Ship will be up, and they'll be a lot more money for expanding the Army, Marines, and Special Forces.

I'm a huge fan of these priorities, and am only skeptical about whether it will get through Congress. Any DCer who's ridden the Metro lately noticed the many, many advertisements for keeping the F-22, of course. What does everyone think?

[TBird41]

He didn't cut the Tanker. In fact, he said they're going to proceed with it and will be soliciting bids this summer. That's really important, bc the current tankers are too old as it is and waiting any longer on new ones is a bad idea if we want to continue to have an Air Force that can control the skies anywhere in the world and get our troops there from anywhere in the world. Predators don't do a whole lot of good when there are still enemy fighters in the air.

I don't know the Navy very well, so I'm not sure about the Carrier and Cruiser, but I think he probably made the right call on pruning FCS and the helicopter. There was a lot of wasted money there developing systems and capabilities that aren't needed and won't likely be needed.

I don't like the fact that he's cutting the F-22 buy and basically shutting down the production line. The current generation of fighters isn't going to cut it if we end up fighting anyone with a reasonable air force or the newest air defenses (Example: the Russians had their newest SAMs deployed when they invaded Georgia and the F15s/F16s can't get close enough to take them out) and I'm not sure the F35 is going to be enough by itself or be ready to step in fast enough. The current fighter fleet is really old and getting older fast (they just had to repair about 280 F16s that had a specific part wear out, and they had to shut down the entire F15 line a year or so ago for a similar reason). They Air Force basically stopped buying new fighters after the Gulf War and put that money into the F22 and F35 programs with the idea that they'd ramp up purchases when they were ready (aka now) to make up for the fighters they didn't buy. Not to mention the fact that the fewer F22s we have, the sooner they wear out and the sooner we need to start up on a replacement / restart the production line (which is also really expensive).

You also left out Missile Defense cuts. I understand a lot of the cuts, but I'm not so sure about the Airborne Laser (they're pretty close to fielding one, if I recall) and I don't understand why we aren't finishing the interceptor fields at Ft. Greely in Alaska. The ground based interceptors work and they're the only shot we have against countries in Asia shooting nukes at us (like, say, North Korea or a limited strike by China)

[SFHoya99]

Can someone who knows about these choices better detail for me overall?

I'm curious as a person who is for a very strong military whether this is a matter of priorities or actually cutting back. I can understand cutting the carriers for military reasons (carriers are somewhat of a dated concept, I think), but I don't like the concept of cutting the F-22.

Reality is, while I'm no hawk and know there's a lot of military waste, I never want to be on the wrong side of military superiority.

[TBird41]

This article is about a year old, so the numbers/years might be off, but it's a really good explanation of the problems facing the Air Force, where they come from and what some of the ramifications of this decision to cap the F22s might be:

www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/April%202008/0408dominance.aspx

[TBird41]

One thing you didn't mention Bando, but that I really like about Gates' proposal is that he's giving a budget line to a lot of things that were normally done ad hoc or in supplementals. He's also right about "requirement creep". That's one of the biggest wastes of money in DoD (the President's Helicopter is a really good example) and it ends up making platforms less effective as well.

The A-10 is an example of a platform that avoided it, and it's ridiculously effective at what it does (air support for ground forces against ground forces). It's basically a big machine gun with wings and a few missiles, which is all it needs to be to do its job, allowing it to be very maneuverable as well.

[TBird41]

Apr 6, 2009 19:32:03 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

I'm not completely up on the various details, but there's no reason to develop the F-35 AND F-22 at the same time. One needs to go.

They aren't designed to do the same thing and they weren't designed with the same principles in mind. In fact, they were designed to compliment each other. The F22 is the ultimate fighter, capable of going in and fighting in Taiwan (which is basically over China when it comes to surface to air missiles) and winning when out numbered. A squadron of F22s will clear the skies faster and with fewer losses than a squadron of F35s. They're expensive, but that's why the Air Force is (and always planned on) buying less of them. The F35 is cheaper and supposed to be the majority of the Air Force fleet and the Navy and Marine's fleet. They're quality planes, but they're not as good as the F22. The plan's always been for something like a 30/70 F22/F35 split in the Air Force fleet, and if the Air Force is going to continue to do what its been doing for the past 50 years, they probably need to buy both at the ratio they've been planning.

Not to mention the fact that at this point they're both pretty much out of the design phase. Andrews AFB and Elemendorf AFB both already have fully fielded F22 squadrons and the Air Force is already in the final steps of fielding their first F35 squadrons. This isn't about the cost of getting them ready to be built, it's about the cost of building them.

[The Stig]

Apr 6, 2009 19:32:03 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

I'm not completely up on the various details, but there's no reason to develop the F-35 AND F-22 at the same time. One needs to go.

Not really. The F-35 is a reasonable air superiority fighter, but it's nowhere near the F-22's class.

As far as the Navy is concerned, I didn't see any mention of the DDG-1000 program. That's one program that really needs the axe. Even the Navy wants it to be cut. The only thing that's keeping it alive is the congressmen from the states that are building it. Considering the fact that its planned gun still hasn't worked, the only way it's an upgrade over the current DDG-51's is that it's stealthy, which is basically useless since our carriers aren't stealthy.

The Navy got it spot-on with our current cruisers and destroyers. They made them both extremely capable all-around ships, with the cruisers basically being scaled-up versions of the destroyers in terms of capabilities. Both were excellent ships. But with the DD-1000 and CG-X, it seems like the Navy insisted on building ships for two separate missions - the destroyer for land attack and the cruiser for air defense. The result will be to classes of ships that aren't really capable on their own.

Specialized ships would also leave a battle group more vulnerable if one ship were lost. As it is, losing one escort ship means a little less of everything, but not the total loss of anything. With specialized ships, losing an air defense ship means that you could lose half or even all of your air defense in one blow, leaving the rest of the battle group badly vulnerable.

The new carrier that Bando mentioned (the Gerald Ford class) is really just a warmed-over Nimitz class. I don't think it would be much of an upgrade - certainly not enough to justify it's huge cost. The Nimitz is still miles ahead of anything that any navy is building or is known to have on the drawing board.

The LCS may have been a good idea when somebody first thought it up, but it's been suffering from the "requirement creep" that TBird was talking about in a huge way. As a result, the costs have shot up. The only good thing about it is that it brings more shipyards into the Navy shipbuilding business.

In short, the Navy's building plans are complete cr*p. The only good plan they've had recently was the Ohio class SSGN conversion program, which was brilliant.

[Bando]

Apr 6, 2009 19:32:03 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

I'm not completely up on the various details, but there's no reason to develop the F-35 AND F-22 at the same time. One needs to go.

That's the thing. The JSF gets us something like 3/4 the capability for 1/2 the price (the F-22 is one of the most expensive airplanes ever produced). We are vastly superior to any Air Force in the world, and even the next two most powerful are our allies. Dogfighting simply isn't important; we destroy most enemy air capabilities on the ground.

To me, the F-22 is the epitome of a screwed up Air Force culture where most of the higher ups are former fighter jocks that constantly need to justify their existence in a world of counterinsurgency and Predator drones. It's the same culture that constantly hypes strategic bombing to the point that it's been (until recently) the US strategy of choice, even when it's failed over and over and over again. It's the same culture that sees tactical support as an unfair burden, when in truth it saves countless American lives and deals untold destruction upon our enemies. It's this culture that puts getting new toys above the interests of national security.

Sure, Congress and the military-industrial complex are also to blame, but I just wanted to pick on the Air Force, as usual. ;D

[Bando]

They aren't designed to do the same thing and they weren't designed with the same principles in mind. In fact, they were designed to compliment each other. The F22 is the ultimate fighter, capable of going in and fighting in Taiwan (which is basically over China when it comes to surface to air missiles) and winning when out numbered. A squadron of F22s will clear the skies faster and with fewer losses than a squadron of F35s.

But you're assuming a Chinese air force that can beat our capabilities as they exist now. And in terms of numbers, pilot training, and command and control, they just can't, and won't be able to for the foreseeable future. The F-22 is a system designed to win a war with the Soviet Union. It's an arms procurement strategy that's 20 years past its relevance.

As far as the Navy is concerned, I didn't see any mention of the DDG-1000 program.

I thought I saw that they'd be building at least one with a max of three, which is a big cut, I believe.

[TBird41]

Apr 6, 2009 22:28:42 GMT -5 Bando said:

They aren't designed to do the same thing and they weren't designed with the same principles in mind. In fact, they were designed to compliment each other. The F22 is the ultimate fighter, capable of going in and fighting in Taiwan (which is basically over China when it comes to surface to air missiles) and winning when out numbered. A squadron of F22s will clear the skies faster and with fewer losses than a squadron of F35s.

But you're assuming a Chinese air force that can beat our capabilities as they exist now. And in terms of numbers, pilot training, and command and control, they just can't, and won't be able to for the foreseeable future. The F-22 is a system designed to win a war with the Soviet Union. It's an arms procurement strategy that's 20 years past its relevance.

It's not just the Chinese fighters that our fighters have to be able to beat. It's their anti aircraft defenses on the ground as well. If we fight the Chinese, it'll be on their turf. If we fight the Russians, it'll be on their turf. And the F-35 isn't good enough to be that much better than the Chinese/Russian fighters AND anti aircraft missiles for the next 20 years. The F-35 and F-22 blend that the Air Force planned for is.

[The Stig]

If that's the case with the DDG-1000, then that's good. One is fine, since it would make a nice (if very expensive) testbed for future projects. Three would be excessive.

As far as the F-22 is concerned, I think it's superiority over the F-35 makes it justified. I think the F-35 is overrated - it tries to do everything, and therefore isn't really great at doing anything. It's an upgrade over our current inventory, but it's not the miracle weapon that a lot of people think it is. It's a small plane that will have to carry everything internally to maintain its stealth, and the result is a plane that can't carry much ordinance at all. Saying that it's 3/4 as capable as the F-22 in air to air combat would be a real stretch.

Our current air to air fighters are fine in some circumstances, but anything without stealth technology is hugely vulnerable against strong air defenses. To stick with the Taiwan example, our current fighters would be relatively safe over the island, but if they ventured over the Straits they'd be blown out of the sky by Chinese SAMs. That's a huge problem if your strategy to defend Taiwan is to sink the troopships before they land.

The F-35 could operate over the Straits, but you can't clear the skies with a fighter that only carries 4 air to air missiles when you're at a numerical disadvantage (remember, it's only a fraction of our air force against the entire Chinese air force). The F-22 can carry twice as many AAM's, and against an enemy that has a big numerical advantage, that's vital.

Ultimately, I just don't think the F-35 would cut it as our primary air defense fighter. It's way too compromised by its air to ground role (which it's not very good for either) and its small size.

[The Stig]

Why does TBird keep beating me to the post by a couple minutes?

[Bando]

Apr 6, 2009 23:38:37 GMT -5 The Stig said:

If that's the case with the DDG-1000, then that's good. One is fine, since it would make a nice (if very expensive) testbed for future projects. Three would be excessive.

As far as the F-22 is concerned, I think it's superiority over the F-35 makes it justified. I think the F-35 is overrated - it tries to do everything, and therefore isn't really great at doing anything. It's an upgrade over our current inventory, but it's not the miracle weapon that a lot of people think it is. It's a small plane that will have to carry everything internally to maintain its stealth, and the result is a plane that can't carry much ordinance at all. Saying that it's 3/4 as capable as the F-22 in air to air combat would be a real stretch.

Our current air to air fighters are fine in some circumstances, but anything without stealth technology is hugely vulnerable against strong air defenses. To stick with the Taiwan example, our current fighters would be relatively safe over the island, but if they ventured over the Straits they'd be blown out of the sky by Chinese SAMs. That's a huge problem if your strategy to defend Taiwan is to sink the troopships before they land.

The F-35 could operate over the Straits, but you can't clear the skies with a fighter that only carries 4 air to air missiles when you're at a numerical disadvantage (remember, it's only a fraction of our air force against the entire Chinese air force). The F-22 can carry twice as many AAM's, and against an enemy that has a big numerical advantage, that's vital.

Ultimately, I just don't think the F-35 would cut it as our primary air defense fighter. It's way too compromised by its air to ground role (which it's not very good for either) and its small size.

But again, you're positing a war unlike anything we're currently fighting now or likely to be fighting in the future. What's really telling, I think, is that we're fighting two wars and the F-22 has yet to be used in combat.

Furthermore, I worry that constantly harping on a hypothetical war with China or Russia to justify spending billions on fighter planes could quickly become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Bando]

FWIW, John McCain has endorsed the Gates plan. (Reuters)

[EasyEd]

It is absolutely necessary that we advance our missile defense systems, given the administration is not going to do anything about the North Korea or Iran threats to get nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

My guess is that Obama told gates to cut X% from the Defense budget and Gates is following orders with what he believes is the best option, given the cut direction. What I would like to see is Obama telling each of his other cabinet officers to do the same X% cut, but it will never happen.

[Cambridge]

Apr 7, 2009 10:36:47 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It is absolutely necessary that we advance our missile defense systems, given the administration is not going to do anything about the North Korea or Iran threats to get nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

My guess is that Obama told gates to cut X% from the Defense budget and Gates is following orders with what he believes is the best option, given the cut direction. What I would like to see is Obama telling each of his other cabinet officers to do the same X% cut, but it will never happen.

While I agree with Ed in general on the missile defense, as a side note, NK appears to be a long way off from actually putting together a functioning missile. Wasn't that like the third absolute failure to launch in the last five years? It seems they are more eager to push the issue and launch up a two-bit model rocket than to actually develop functioning technology. I guess the incentive to hit your deadlines regardless of results is pretty high in NK. Or, perhaps, more accurately, the punishments for missing a deadline and accurately reporting failures are so odious that it leads to a culture of absolute and perpetual state fictions. It is the closest to 1984 imaginable.

For those of you who haven't already seen it, I suggest watching the VBS.com documentary about a trip to NK. Eye opening. I really wouldn't be too worried about them. Yes, the nation is unstable and insane, but they appear to be completely crippled internally and obsessed with promoting the national myth of success. Everything is geared to the illusion of success, not the actualization of success. They are the nation equivalent of that annoying only child who showed up at your soccer team one year with all the gear and demanded to be goalie...except he was the least coordinated person on the planet.

[Bando]

Apr 7, 2009 10:36:47 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It is absolutely necessary that we advance our missile defense systems, given the administration is not going to do anything about the North Korea or Iran threats to get nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

My guess is that Obama told gates to cut X% from the Defense budget and Gates is following orders with what he believes is the best option, given the cut direction. What I would like to see is Obama telling each of his other cabinet officers to do the same X% cut, but it will never happen.

I don't believe they're actually cutting the budget, though, right? They're just redirecting the spending.

Also, I'd quibble with the notion that this isn't something Gates didn't want to do. He got unprecedented secrecy and free hand in setting this up. Gates is using his unique position as a Republican holdover for a Democratic president to fundamentally reform military procurement.

[CO_Hoya]

Apr 7, 2009 10:36:47 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

My guess is that Obama told gates to cut X% from the Defense budget and Gates is following orders with what he believes is the best option, given the cut direction. What I would like to see is Obama telling each of his other cabinet officers to do the same X% cut, but it will never happen.

Two things I learned while reading a WashPost article on this (which I only read because of this thread:

• This proposed defense budget increases spending 4% over 2009.
  
• The 2009 defense budget ($513 billion) exceeded the combined budgets of the next 25 highest-spending nations.
  

[Cambridge]

Here is the documentary on NK. I can't express adequately precisely how creepy, surreal and institutionally insane NK comes off.

www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1442316088

[jgalt]

How the hell do all you people know so much about this stuff!!??