I think it is worth some investigation to see whatether we are looking after our industrial capacity, but I wonder if there is a better way to go about it, besides buying stuff we may not need. I could see a sustained program quickly becoming another pork barrel enterprise.

When Gen. William Snow arrived in Washington, D.C., to direct the buildup of the artillery for the Allied Expeditionary Force, he thought his office ought to have stationary reflecting the importance of the task.

His request was rejected. Rather than fund this excessive extravagance, it was suggested the general purchase a rubber stamp to mark his correspondence.

Snow joined a War Department completely unprepared to fight World War I. The Army hadn’t been used to buying much of anything since the Civil War. They had forgotten how. And, there wasn’t much to buy.

The U.S. had virtually no defense industrial base. When America entered the war, Congress handed out unprecedented contracts for artillery, tanks and planes. The war was over before U.S. industry could deliver any of them. Doughboys went into battle riding British tanks, piloting French planes and firing artillery made by their allies.

America is returning to the 19th century, a world where it will be incapable of producing the instruments needed to defend itself. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ policies are pumping steroids into the speed of that decline.

Both houses of Congress have now passed the defense authorization bill, giving their rubber stamp to dismantling the defense industrial base. Last week, President Barack Obama made a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars cheerleading the decision.

Obama has couched many of these defense cuts in rhetoric that sounds like smart business decisions, axing unneeded weapons and killing costly programs. From massive cuts to missile defense to pairing back on how many ships and planes America needs, the truth is that the administration is more interested in budget-slashing than smart-buying.

They are gutting buying defenses for the future to pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The proof of this is simple. They are cutting programs and replacing them with … nothing.

The Pentagon plan is to simply ignore future needs or else push the decision to buy new equipment far into the future, when paying for new planes, combat vehicles, missile defenses and ships will be somebody else’s problem.

What Washington has not explained is how it’s going to sustain a defense industrial base when it doesn’t buy anything. Today, defense purchases account for about 10 percent of the nation’s industrial output. In a decade, that production could virtually vanish.

In fairness, Obama did not invent this problem. Washington has not seriously worried about the defense industrial base since the end of the Cold War. While the Obama/Gates’ cuts have been trumpeted from the Pentagon’s E-Ring, folks forget that his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, slashed about 100 procurement programs.

The real problem is that neither the Obama administration nor its predecessor really looked at the impact of these decisions on the capacity of the American industrial base to support any future Pentagon strategy.

A recent study by the Aerospace Industries Association found that some of our defense sectors are already on life support. Regardless of any strategy the Pentagon might pick, the industrial base for developing rotary-wing systems (like combat helicopters), long-range bombers and some space assets is now so crippled, companies would have a difficult time responding to new requirements, even if the military wanted a lot more new stuff.

There is only one answer: The Pentagon is going to have to immediately start a sustained program of modernizing its military capabilities or the defense industrial base is going to dry up and blow away — and with it will go high-paying jobs, technical innovation and America’s capacity to defend itself at a reasonable cost.

Examiner columnist James Jay Carafano is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org).

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/james_carafano/Obama-Gates-are-gutting-Americas-defense-industry-56286707.html

The last credible counter air threat was posed by the Iraqi’s in the first Gulf War. They had no AWACS capability and relied on their ground-based C4 systems to direct their air defense fighters. Majority of their C4 systems were destroyed by the F-117 stealth fighter. Without their C4 systems, their air force could not muster a credible air defense and so the vast majority of the air force simply fled to Iran.

The F-22 has already displayed remarkable dogfighting capabilities (knife-point range) with it’s high maneuverability even at low speeds. And once it receives the JHMCS upgrade to complement the AIM-9X, it would be foolish for anyone to dare to try and get within 20 miles of the jet (though Air Force studies show that if two aircraft face off with high off-boresight missiles, the result would be mutual suicide). It’s thrust-vectoring gives it a maneuverability edge at high altitudes over aircraft that lack thrust-vectoring. And it’s BVR capabilities are second to none. It’s already displayed the ability to jam enemy radar using it’s own radar, and even focus the radar energy to function as a directed energy weapon and actually burn the electronics onboard a missile… effectively shooting down the missile with only radar energy. I’m not sure if the F-35 or F/A-18’s AESA radar would be powerful enough to act as a directed energy weapon as on the F-22 or F-15C.

No modern aircraft, or near-future aircraft can outrun or outmaneuver any modern air/surface-to-air missile… infrared or radar-guided. Most modern anti-aircraft missiles can accelerate to Mach 3 a lot quicker than any current or near-future fighter can even accelerate to Mach 2. They can pull turns in excess of 15g’s sustained, over 20g’s instantaneous, without much loss of energy (altitude and/or airspeed) when most fighters have a human-limit of 9g’s sustained, 14g instantaneous, while losing a good deal of energy executing violent maneuvers. Their modern guidance packages makes flares useless for infrared missiles, and severely limits the effectiveness of chaff for radar guided missiles. The best way to deal with the missiles is to prevent them from even being fired. The F-22’s all-aspect stealth and super-cruise capabilities makes it the perfect candidate for SEAD, whereas the F-35’s limited-aspect stealth and lack of super cruise makes it more of a liability against today’s missile threat.

The F-15K is the South Korean export version based off of our F-15E, with different avionics and GE engines. And the F-15SE’s RCS additions are worthless against SAM’s, and of little to no use against modern fighter-based radars. The F-15E is designed to be more of a bomb-truck that can defend itself with AIM-9’s and AIM-120’s. It’s air-to-air performance is much lower than the F-15C dedicated air superiority version. And given that it’s designed to be a bomb truck, it has very limited standoff capability. The AGM-154 JSOW only has a range of 70 miles at high altitude, well within the range of SAM systems. The AGM-84K SLAM-ER has a range of 150 miles, still within the range of more current SAM systems. The AGM-158 JASSM has yet to be deployed. The F-15E would only be able to carry at most three of these missiles, but would have to give up carrying an external fuel tank for each missile… severely limiting the range of the fuel-guzzling aircraft.

The F/A-18E/F has better air-to-ground missile payloads and better avionics compared to the F-15E (which will soon match the avionics once it receives the (V)4 radar upgrade). It’s the better stand-off strike fighter with better air-to-air capabilities, but the F-15E is the better bombing strike fighter. However the F/A-18E/F still would have low survivability in the SEAD mission profile compared to even the F-35.

The whole notion of considering the F-35 a stealth fighter is a farce. It would be more properly classified as a reduced-RCS fighter. Reduced-RCS aside, the other improvements it would offer over the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D is avionics and combat radius. Payload is about the same. The F-16 and F/A-18 airframes have nearly been upgraded to the limit, and further upgrades will only get more and more expensive, and less and less effective. This was illustrated when Northrop marketed an upgraded F-5 from the 1960’s as the F-20 to compete with the F-16, but it became evident that the design had already been pushed to the limit, yet the F-16 had a much greater potential.

As much as I dislike the F-35 (only because it’s so over-hyped), I will say that people need to stop touting the unit cost when arguing the economy of the project. Most unit cost estimates are higher than the current fourth-generation fighters, but the real savings comes from the logistics of supporting a fighter that has an extremely high commonality across the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied users. How many parts from the F/A-18 are compatible with the F-15? Of those compatible parts, how many are compatible with the F-16? And then the Tornado? As the program progresses and matures, investment costs, sustainment costs, etc. should go down much more so than seen before compared to any other fighter program.

It’s definitely no replacement for the F-22, nor can it be expected to fulfill the same missions with the same effectiveness, but it is a necessary program that will.

Read the suit yourself

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

Drake 1, Air Superiority has always been the primary mission of the F22. The multi-role notion was raised when Gen Jumper began experiencing head wind on the program. The F/A-22 role was to “kick the door in”…ie suppress SA10/20/IADS/fighters. The notion performing the complete range of air missions including BAI or close-in TICs with an F-22 has never been proposed by any serious AF warfighter. There are some in town, arm chair air warriors (meaning: they have never had any air under their butt or combat time,)that promulgate all grades of silly ideas. The primay impetus for multi-role fighters is driven more by budget/cost than mission accomplishment..SO, anyone that has made their living employing air power will tell you that asking the F35 to stretch from an a/a fight at 40K to performing close-in CAS is a sub-optimization drill…for the a/c and the pilot.
==================================================
Not sure why you feel the need to lecture me on something totally unrelated to the topic at hand, but it seems everything becomes a F-22 topic to people like you and pfcem.

Remember the democrat answer is the same for every defense program that is not “perfect”: it does not work; it is too expensive; we don’t need it… so cancel it..

The the democrat answer for every stupid social welfare program that does not work: we need more money!!!!

Drake1,

Much of the F-22 ‘cost overuns & delays’ were a result of inadequate support from the Administration, Congress & even within the DOD. UNLIKE the F-22, the F-35 has LOTS of support from the Administration, Congress & within the DOD.

YOU are the one pretending. Pretending that ‘cost overuns & delays’ were the main reason for the cutting of the F-22 (in fact it is MUCH more the reverse).

The F-22 had (its still strong)pretty strong support in the Congress from key backers.

Furthermore, your reading comprehension appears to be off, since I never said ‘cost overruns or delays’ were a major reason for the cutting of the F-22.

Much of the F-22 ‘cost overuns & delays’ were a result of inadequate support from the Administration, Congress & even within the DOD. UNLIKE the F-22, the F-35 has LOTS of support from the Administration, Congress & within the DOD.

YOU are the one pretending. Pretending that ‘cost overuns & delays’ were the main reason for the cutting of the F-22 (in fact it is MUCH more the reverse).

Drake1,

No, the forces that worked against the F-22 (i.e a few powerful people in Washington) are working very hard FOR the F-35. In fact one of their main BS claims for cutting the F-22 IS the F-35.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What did I say here?

“Gates knows that the same forces that worked against the F-22 can also work their magic on the F-35, seeing as their development histories practically mirror each other.”

“Yes Gates and the Administration were decisive in ending the F-22 production run, but the same cost overruns and delays that plagued the F-22 program,are also apparent in the F-35 program.”

“Yes Gates and the Administration were decisive in ending the F-22 production run, but the same cost overruns and delays that plagued the F-22 program,are also apparent in the F-35 program. Given the budget situation, wars, and the current political climate, it is possible if problems continue in the F-35 program, that we could see less aircraft being built than was originally intended.“
=================================

Pfcem still wants to pretend that cost overruns and delays did not contribute to the F-22s demise. Gates and the Administration would of had a much harder time(like the past Administration)ending the F-22 production run without the help of Senators like Carl Levin
and John McCain in the Armed Services Committee who were swayed by the the F-22s delays and cost overruns. We can argue all day and split hairs about how much costs played a role in the the F-22s demise, but it ultimately played a role.

Gates now realizes that these same forces could end up killing or extremely limiting the max total of F-35s fielded, and is (apparently) doing all in his power to see that that does not happen

How about calming down and stop bad mouthing people that don’t say exactly what you want to hear.

Heck, give me a certified patriot missile crew with PAC-2 and we’d smear’em.

The current conflict is an anomaly, the next war will not be against a determined enemy in the mountains with low tech.

Give an illiterate farmer a modern MANPADS, support him with conventional forces and states with an umbrella of new SAM’s (and maybe nuclear missiles) and you have the hybrid threat.

Just like we did to the Sov’s back in the 80’s.

No, the forces that worked against the F-22 (i.e a few powerful people in Washington) are working very hard FOR the F-35. In fact one of their main BS claims for cutting the F-22 IS the F-35.

***

8thidpathfinderpower,

You have no idea what you are talking about. The latest 4th generation fighters have ALREADY beed surpasssed in capability by aircraft of potential enemies & even MORE capable fighters & air defences are currently in developement. Fighters & air defences the F-22/F-35 are/were designed to defeat because the latest 4th generation fighters CAN’T.

The maneuverability & acceleration of a COMBAT LOADED F-35 is on par with that of a CLEAN F-16 block 50 & the high AOC capability of the F-35 is SUPERIOR to the F/A-18! But as good as the F-35 is it is still no F-22 nor F-22 replacement — just as as good as the F-16 is/was it is/was no F-15 nor F-15 replacement.

Strike capable UAVs are not expected until 2025 & even then they are to SUPPLIMENT manned aircraft rather than replace them.

I have already written my senator, ans he is working hard to kill this cash sow. I like the military justifactionfor such a project, claiming it will do every thing, when clearly, it cannot, and will not. This project is justa another example of glamorized salesman ship, and excess.

Current missionprofiles and evolving threats can be handeled by the latest 4th generation fighters such as the F15, F16, and F/A 18E/F. And we need more of these toreplace already whats in service, being all used up in the wall in terror. Fatigue issues have already happened in the A-10, and F-15, F16. We have already cutthe current fighter force by 250 aircraft because of this.

Current Russian fighter design with the Su35 series just unvailed will be far superior than this wonder piece of flying junk we are trying to so desperately sell. Advanced ground to air threats have also negated the stealth aspects of this sh!t can to the point it will not work.
And thats not to mention current production versions of other aircraft over match the capabilities both projected and current in terms of manouverability, CAS, CAP, and air to air threats.

The F35 is a piece of junk. Non manouverable compared to the latest version of the Hornet, falcon, and eagle. Poor pay load compared to the F16, and F15, and F18. I could go on and on.

If sead is the mission they hoping to use this piece of crap on, the airfarce is already drawing up plans to use UAVs in this role. (again, another mistake and a trillion dollars down the tube, both F35 and UAVs)

I could go on and on about this aircraft. I have watched the highly touted production films on the wonderful things this cash sow can do. If any one wants to cry billion dollar program that needs cut, then this is the one for sure. They should have stuck with the F22…at least they KNEW that was a piece of sh!t.

Save money save lives. Buy more F16’s, F15’sandF18 series aircraft. Retro fit existing ones with thrust vectoring nozzels and foreplanes. And you will have such a fighter,even the Russians with superior technology will shake and quiver.