QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV

QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV

UPDATED: JSF Cut About 100 Planes, One Year Added to Schedule

Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should result in the demise of two Navy carrier groups and the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike Fighter program is likely to lose a so-far uncertain number of planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.

Folks on the Hill are watching the carrier cuts particularly closely. They were willing to accept the temporary loss of one carrier but two groups may just be too much for lawmakers to swallow though it would conveniently answer the hot debate about whether the Navy faces a fighter gap.

“Even if they cut two carrier strike groups (which will be an uphill battle for DOD), they still face a significant USN fighter gap,” said a congressional aide following this. “The Navy seems to recognize this, but everything we’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to indicate that they’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.”


The 2010 defense authorization report noted carefully that Congress was willing to accept the “temporary reduction in minimum number of operational aircraft carriers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78 is commissioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has made a long-term commitment to field 11 aircraft carriers outfitted with 10 carrier air wings composed of 44 strike-fighters in each wing.” Congress, the report’s authors said, is “very concerned” about “current and forecasted shortfalls in the strike-fighter inventory.” Given the totemic nature of carriers for the Navy and the numbers of jobs and the money at stake for members of Congress, a battle royal over plans to permanently reduce the fleet by two carrier groups seems assured.

On the Joint Strike Fighter, one congressional aide said a cut to the F-35’s overall numbers would not be surprising given the program’s rising costs and the tightened budget situation the country faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how big those cuts may be, Our colleagues at Inside Defense are reporting that a draft Pentagon directive would result in extending, “development by at least a year, reduce production by approximately 100 aircraft and require the addition of billions of dollars to the effort through 2015.”

The Marines are unlikely to sit still for the EFV kill. Reports are that Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway will come out swinging to preserve the ability to kick down the door and ensure forcible entry from the sea. Jones made his basic position on the problem-plagued EFV during a May speech at CSIS.

The larger strategy debate would seem to embrace such cuts, or at least make them easier to propose. Gen. Hoss Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that the venerable two major theater war strategy was dead.

“The military requirement right now is associated with the strategy that we are laying out in the QDR, and it is a departure from the two major theater war construct that we have adhered to in the past and in which this aircraft [the F-22] grew up. I mean it grew up in that construct of two major theater wars, and both of them being of a peer competitor quality,” Cartwright said.

“The strategy that we are moving towards is one that is acknowledging of the fact that we are not in that type of conflict, that the more likely conflicts are going to be the ones that we—similar to the ones that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that we do need to have a capability against a major peer competitor and that we believe that the sizing construct, one, demands that we have fifth generation fighters across all three services rather than just one and that the number of those fighters probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two simultaneous peer competitors, that we don’t see that as the likely. We see that as the extreme,” Cartwright told senators then.

Join the Conversation

The history of aircraft purchase in particular has been very consistent — each new model is “more capable” and so far more expensive. We buy fewer and fewer of them. Of course our political and military leaders tell us that the trend has “just stopped” but then they retire… So will we buy the F-35 is large numbers? Almost certainly it will suddenly be discovered to be over budget and underperforming — like every aircraft before it since the Sopwith Camel. Suddenly it will be necessary to buy a minimum number of them to get us over the hump until the next aircraft is ready for full scale production. Sigh — I am getting to be so cynical.
The Navy had better put money into maintenance, to make those F-18s last as long as the B-52 has.

Go ahead, twist the knife Obama and co. Two carrier battlegroups cut? Retiring one of the Nimitz class carriers early? What else do you expect from these people?

And the EFV? I guess the USMC will have to resort to rubber rafts before their AAVPs all fall apart.

The EFV has been horribly managed by the Marine Corps. If that’s their idea of responsible requirements development and acquisition initiative, then they need to go back to school. Badly. Killing the EFV is about the most responsible thing that Bob Gates has done since he was appointed by Bush. You do remember that, don’t you William C.? It’s a Bush appointee that is cutting the programs so that DOD has some operational money to finish the wars that Bush started but couldn’t finish.

Well at least we’ll have a trillion dollars spent on government controlled health care and another on bailouts. Why is it that the government has to cut money from its constitutionally explicit duties to promote that other stuff?

We are on a path to irrelevance. The way we are heading we won’t have an Air Force or a Navy to have an ability to influence world events that affect the United States. A some point quality without quantity fails to win. I think we may have passed that point with $100M F-35 and the cutting of 2 MORE carriers.

elections have consequences

“Gen. Hoss Cartwright”?
Glad to hear this. Like the rest of the services, the Navy is catching up to the wars we are fighting now.

I’m speechless. Quantity is a quality all it’s own. Our deterrent-capability lies in our ability to be everywhere in the world at once. It’s even worse that we do not have a strategic bomber in the pipeline (that we know of).

Good Afternoon Folks,

This all sounds reasonable to me. Ten Carrier Battle/Strike groups appear for what the world situation currently is to be sufficient to project US power or defend US interest at will any place in the world.

The EFV is a troublesome program that at now $10 million per track has gone into a black hole. It’s time to kill it.

Cutting the F-35 males sense, it’s been to long in development, it’s intended missions have either disappeared or have been taken over by other platforms and at lesser cost. It won’t be ready to be used in Afghanistan and if it was what would it do that is not already being done?

The X-45 and X47B platforms developments are coming along much faster then the F-35. The age of the dominance of the unmanned platform is here Predators. Warriors, Hunter Vipers and Reapers along with other platforms like the RQ-170 are already in the field and doing “one he** of a job.” to quite a recent president. The Navy projected earlier this year that it sees by 2020 over 75% of it carrier based aircraft will be unmanned. The AF is coming along kicking and crying into the 21st. Century too.

I know that the neo-antebellum conservative think tankers who still lobby for the status quo won’t support this, but it is time to start buying into the future and cutting the strings to old legacy platforms and systems of the 20th. Century.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron has not yet met a military program that he couldn’t live without!! But we should note that we build a defense system (people, hardware, strategy) not for what the world situation currently is — but what it could be. We did not want to resource our military for the world situation as of Dec 6, 1941 but for Dec 7, 1941.

Still, we agree that military projects have continued to grow large, complex, and expensive. Too much of each.

Still, I do not want to bet my security on the promise of the “X-anything”, but on the demonstrated capability of the systems of today. Certainly the missions of the F-35 have NOT disappeared, and many of them cannot be done with unmanned systems. We just need to have a reasonable transition to newer systems, and have those systems to not be so advanced as to be unaffordable under any circumstances.

Charles Phillips
LtCol, USAF (Ret)

Obama is a committed hardcore anti-American leftist. He detests the military and will take all the money he can from the military to bribe his leftist (progressive) cronies.

Obama takes no pride in American history and loathes the average American. Decent people loathe him right back.

I want to echo a comment that was made earlier. The problem is as much domestic spending as anything else. A constitutionally specific duty such as defense is not where you cut.

In fact, just in the last day or so, the media reported that $200+ billion of tarp money was unspent. Well, then, buy an $8billion aircraft carrier, or put the money down on the national debt.

I’m tired of the current administration stating their $1.4+trillion is not caused by them, yet they go out and promote an awful, really, really bad healthcare reform bill that doesn’t nothing of the sort. It’s all about liberals who think they know better than anyone else, and the same people who claim that it was conservatives who were pushing ‘values’ at everyone, are in fact pushing their same ‘values’ (government control) of everything.

What you have in the current administration is anti-military dudes who’s sole purpose is to neuter the military. If you don’t think they’d like to go down to 4–5 carriers, cut the strategic bomber fleet to next to nothing, etc., then you are sadly mistaken.

Elections have consequences.

Byron:

Are you the same ‘Byron’ on Information Dissemination and CDR Salamander? I will say one thing, at least you are consistant.

As a student of history, I remember the ‘revolt of the admirals’ in the 1950’s, when the carrier fleet was being threatened then. We don’t need 10 carriers, we need 15 carriers.

As everyone is stating, bad actors are obtaining non-nuclear, very silent subs. What happens if we lose a carrier to one of these subs. Suddenly 10 carriers aren’t looking like enough, are they?

The carrier fleet has been threatened since after WWII, and continues to prove its value. We better go up in the amount of carriers, not down. We better not retire CVN 72 early. What a waste of a national asset.

Remark on Obama all you want, but understand most of these cuts were first proposed over a year ago when Bush was in office.

I’m speechless. Quantity is a quality all it’s own. Our deterrent-capability lies in our ability to be everywhere in the world at once. It’s even worse that we do not have a strategic bomber in the pipeline (that we know of).

Byron what does the USMC do with no EFV? SLEP the AAV?

Everyone think about this. If most of our tactical aircraft become unmanned, they probably will get hacked and turned into Bot s by whomever and used against us. Don’t laugh it could very easily happen, especially if you how pathetically we guard out IT infrastructure.

“The purpose of the QDR is “to assess the threats and capabilities the nation faces, and then integrate strategies, resources, forces, and capabilities necessary to prevent conflict or conclude it on terms that are favorable to the nation now and in the future,” Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in an April 23 news release.”

OMG! DoD is again advising the WH of it’s options given the current outlook. The world’s coming to an end, yet again.

Right on Bob!!! Obama is specifically weakening or eliminating our long range power projection strike assets making it impossible to respond to distant threats/conflicts in a timely fashion. Why? So it foirces future President’s to go to the UN or some such international body. What that means of course is endless and futile talk, talk and talk. Meanwhile Iran gets nukes, North Korea keeps building up their arsenal and China dominates Asia Pacific.

No, that cannot easily happen. What can happen is that our communications get jammed or our satellites get destroyed.

Byron, 75% carrier based aircraft will be unmanned by 2020? How in the hell will that happen when our carriers won’t even be fully populated with F-35s, much less UCAVs that haven’t even flown yet.

This, of course ignores the fact that China and Russia are rapidly developing capabilities to disrupt and/or destroy our satellite communications, of which our drones rely on. How do you think all those fancy Predators are able to communicate with Joe Pilot out in the middle of the Nevada Desert? It’s not voodoo magic, I’ll tell you that. Our comm sats are quite vulnerable and would likely be one of the first things China or Russia went after in any conflict.

Cutting the F-22 males sense, it’s been to long in development, it’s intended missions have either disappeared or have been taken over by the F-35 and at lesser cost. It won’t be ready to be used in Afghanistan and if it was what would it do that is not already being done?

Sound familiar?

Forget what I said. Gates first mentioned it back in April. Damn him for serving two presidents and screwing with my memory.

As for the EFV why cut a program just as the problems have been worked out! Typical, spend billions and a decade to develop it. Then cancel it on the verge of it entering service. Plus, like one of the poster said. What are the Marines to use now? Rubber Rafts!

Further, the only way to keep the price down on the F-35. Is to sell them in volume! Now when not a single JSF Partner has cut back on there orders for the type. The US says its cutting back on the number it plans on buying!!!!!! Man I can just see the flood on countries that will follow suite. Maybe even cancelling there orders all together????? NOW THE PRICE WILL REALLY GO UP! So, what then.….…Is Obama going to cut more???

Now we will have a very small force indeed.….….….

Personally, this is the last straw for me. I had high hopes for President Obama. Now, I will fight him at every turn.….….…(i.e. Re-Election) Plus, I will actively oppose any of his Democratic Supporters too!

Good Evening Folks,

For Lt. Col. Phillips, sir. Here we go with Pearl harbor, again. Of the systems that are being considered for being canceled or reduced, a break here both Lt. Col. Phillips and myself know that the QDR is a meaningless document for politicians, a Carrier, the EFV or the F-35 how could any of these platforms prevent or help prevent a surprise strike on the United States?

It is no secret that the US will always have to have a carrier and two SSN’s in production or as happened in Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed the industrial capacity to produce these types of weapons will disappear. The modern nuclear carrier is build for 50 years of service, it takes roughly five years to build a carrier, currently and about a year and a half for a nuclear submarine with a service life of about 25–30 years do the math. We have one yard that builds nuclear carriers and two yards left to build nuclear submarines.

With all due respect Colonel Phillips, I promoted you, the old Pearl Harbor analogy doesn’t apply here, as it doesn’t when most folks try and use it. None of these platforms are an effort to try and determine any future foes intentions in regard to doing harm to the United States.

You are right I can live without most military programs since they do nothing for the three wars we are currently fighting.

As far as planning for the future, the trillions of Cold War dollars the US spent on ships, missiles, aircraft and ground systems that were developed, bought and never used, and most likely wouldn’t have worked if they were needed is a lesson that has yet to be learned by the military and the politicians that spend the money on this junque.

I know you are going to say that many of these systems served in Vietnam, which sir they did, but I ask you is the F-100 the best possible platform to drop naplam form a few hundred feet, or the F-105 was the best choice of a ground attack aircraft in North Vietnam (consider the losses of air crews of the F-105), or was the F-101 the best photo recon. plane, were these the most cost effective platforms and systems we could have used?

The EFV. It’s a high speed AAV7 with a 30mm Bushmaster II gun. They are suppose to move Marines quickly from their ships a few miles off shore to a beach landing and then serve as a fire support for the marines after landing.

First the concept is totally flawed. An amphibious craft has to be made as light as possible, thus aluminum sides that rifle bullets will penetrate, which is not want you want in an IFV. If you armor up the amphibious craft, well it become a submarine, see the problem?

After over twenty years of development and the unit cost hitting $10,000,000.00 only Congressman John Murtha still though they were a bargain, I’m sure he gets a Christmas card from GD the contractor every year.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

BS — figure 3 significant conflict engagements~! germany/euro, frr, prc. (4.5-/5th– generation fighters).
Please disregard:
“The strat­egy that we are mov­ing towards … does not need to be suf­fi­cient to take on two simul­ta­ne­ous peer com­peti­tors, that we don’t see that as the likely.“
Force projection is the name of the game and we should have 13 Carriers ALL w/ F-22s (44 per wing) and the EFVs, nano-bots, UAVs, SAT-link, etc.
Who dat~?

BS — figure 3 significant conflict engagements~! germany/euro, frr, prc. (4.5-/5th– generation fighters).__Please disregard:__ “The strat­egy that we are mov­ing towards … does not need to be suf­fi­cient to take on two simul­ta­ne­ous peer com­peti­tors, that we don’t see that as the likely.“__Force projection is the name of the game and we should have 13 Carriers ALL w/ F-22s (44 per wing) and the EFVs, nano-bots, UAVs, SAT-link, etc.__Who dat~?

Its back to Jimmy Carter era and a broke fleet and low morale… the congress is not concerned at all, they are too busy with their medical insurance scam and watching brokeback mountain with Barney Frank to care. When the next Ronald Reagan shows up, I hope he doesnt give them a pass. This Obama dude is gonna set us back 30 years. Thats what the Chinese want.

Well Americans, you voted for a democrat in the white house and a democrat congress. How do you like your politicians now?

Well said Miguel.

Wishing 4 Wild Bill Donovan. Hope We have a Wild Bill Donovan to score a realistic Carte Blanche to provide the essentials for a prepared Armed Forces. So many people would buy Defense Bonds like We did in the old days; if We All knew vital resources are required for a carrier group or two. Jane’s Defense Manuel spreads the knowledge on world military arsenals. CVE-88 was Grandfathers carrier. Prior to that Grandfathers PBY out of Trinidad relentlessly tracked down a U boat. The U.S. Navy towed the surrendered U boat. One chap, a trusted official of the U.S. Navy Yard D.C. back in the 80’s mentioned the key phrase cost effective was a buzz in Navy decisions. Presently, if we do need carriers 4 today and in the future hopefully construction or smarter substitutes will fill in for carrier platforms. Success is dependent on effective 3M; management maintenance manpower capabilities to materialize before and JIT Just In Time for the emergencies. Kaiser was awarded the contract for CVE-88 Cape Esperance in 1944. Bonds sweat creativity tenacity and brains made it possible for America and her allies to meet warfare supply and demand. The sting of defeat is enough to motivate anyone to be desirous and prepared to offset disaster. One Captain in the 90’s mentioned to us;“I’d like to be fat dumb and happy. Fat dumb and happy is an easy way to be;but that is not what we are.” Underdogs are compelled to scrap harder think resourcefully and to improvise much like our Navy Fighters who have to confront Congress. Military minds have had to deal with political power structures since the beginning of time. It would be a culture shock to be stripped of everything you had for the want of 2 carrier groups. Propaganda War Bond posters abounded during WWII. Servicemen and working Moms brought bonds. Bonds provided the wealth to sustain armaments for victory. Wars and man made natural type disasters can be triggered with a push button. What a job it is planning for now and the future! “Yes Virgina there is a devil. The devil is in man like in Anton Chekhov’s story The Brothers Karamazov.”

I hate to say but Obama has to go! Now after a year of spending money like crazy and the economy getting worse by the day. (still over 10% unemployment) He wants to make drastic cut to defense! Really, cutting two Carriers couldn’t come at the worst time. As China, India, and Russia (plus more) are planning on large Carrier Fleets themselves!

Let’s also not forget we can only build two carriers every decade. So, if you get below a certain number. Its almost impossible to catch back up!

Beam me up Scotty…there is no intellegent life down here.

Most of you are mixing up cause and effect. Just because Obama is reacting to the economic crisis and reckless military spending by actually doing something about it (almost like Bush did, but exactly the opposite) you seem to draw the conclusion that he created the situation in the first place, even though some of the issues he is adressing have been around for years.

Whatever you think of your own president, the rest of the civilised world thinks exactly the opposite. So whilst you loved bush (either that or 51% of the country was drinking when you guys decided to re-elect that idiot, that was the day i lost faith in the USA) the rest of the world saw him for the world-destroyer that he was. And now even though you hate obama because he is stopping you from buying waterproof cars that cost 10 million each, the rest of the world still kinda likes him, because he does stuff like listen to other people, and not randomly invade countries he doesnt like the look of on a globe, or choke on pretzels.

Seriously, for once you have a president who can read as well as write, be happy with what you’ve got!

Most of you are mixing up cause and effect. Just because Obama is reacting to the economic crisis and reckless military spending by actually doing something about it (almost like Bush did, but exactly the opposite) you seem to draw the conclusion that he created the situation in the first place, even though some of the issues he is adressing have been around for years.

Whatever you think of your own president, the rest of the civilised world thinks exactly the opposite. So whilst you loved bush (either that or 51% of the country was drinking when you guys decided to re-elect that idiot, that was the day i lost faith in the USA) the rest of the world saw him for the world-destroyer that he was. And now even though you hate obama because he is stopping you from buying waterproof cars that cost 10 million each, the rest of the world still kinda likes him, because he does stuff like listen to other people, and not randomly invade countries he doesnt like the look of on a globe, or choke on pretzels.

Seriously, for once you have a president who can read as well as write, be happy with what you’ve got!

byron the “cold war weapons” are the weapons fighting the current wars. the a-10s the Abrams the Bradley the hummvee the uh 60 the ch47 oh 58 m16/m4 m14 m9 f 15 f 16 b1b b2 the only major not “cold war weapon” i can think of is the stryker and some naval assets.

One of the blessings of an empire on the verge of insolvency is the reduction in military forces. The fewer resources the US can afford, the less it can terrorize the rest of the world with threat of invasion and destruction. May this be the beginning of the end of the the US/formerly British Empire that the sun never sets on! The world can be a far safe place without the military-industrial complex that rules the USA. Of course, the industrialists will find other buyers.

Sure does remind me of teh Carter Years! Lawmakers.…We cannot afford to take down any carriers! Nor can we afford to take down any wings! As someone said above JSF can be reduced but we need to add additional UAV’s and be able to fight un-manned. Upgrade the existing fighers to add many good years, we still have Air superiority and as well as Sea superiority! BTW — I’m a designer for JSF and a USAF Vet!

P –RedWhiteBlue … “designer for JSF and a USAF Vet”… if we stop designing aircraft for our services to use against those that would take from us, would you still have a job or legacy?

Why not sell the carrier groups to a steadfast ally like Canada for $1? Canada then takes over the maintenance costs and our navies grow in integration. The US then retains nearly all the benefits with reduced costs, we gain a greater capability in exchange. I’ve fell for years that most of your foreign military aid should go to those who are most like you. As for some of the other issues raised, make no mistake about it, the US needs to spend a little less $ on defense and a little more on people. Canada has the opposite problem. Looks like a win win situation to me.

EFV is a mid-20th century concept.…it’s outdated today. Assaulting a defended beach?.….is anyone going to throw the BS flag on that? Did we not invest in amphibious shipping (albeit a very small one) that is blazing fast compared to the 10-12kt AKAs of the WWII era? We always fight the “Joint” fight…the game plan is to take a port or take an airfield…they are everywhere in today’s world.

Almost blasphemy to say so, since I’m a Marine, but the EFV is a WHITE ELEPHANT to which we have much more an emotional than rational connection. Others have already commented, the “Alloy” EFV cannot stop .50cal or 12.7mm, yet it’s armed with a rather large caliber machine gun / cannon? Makes no sense.

The entire program makes no sense in today’s world. And NO, building the EFV does not prepare us for future threats…that argument is a red herring.

Time to cancel the EFV.

Why not sell the carrier groups to a steadfast ally like Canada for $1? Canada then takes over the maintenance costs and our navies grow in integration. The US then retains nearly all the benefits with reduced costs, we gain a greater capability in exchange. I’ve fell for years that most of your foreign military aid should go to those who are most like you. As for some of the other issues raised, make no mistake about it, the US needs to spend a little less $ on defense and a little more on people. Canada has the opposite problem. Looks like a win win situation to me.

WarScientist, I wont take your comments as an Obama endorsement (youtube ‘Obama deception’), and anyone who actually thinks Obama has any say in this New World Order vision, should look again at the facts. Obama has flipped on every promise, and the efforts to take over countries using ‘financial’ attacks/means via the IMF and World Bank have proven more successful in most cases that holding a large military force that is just wasting money. Besides, the international bankers are concerned that too many Americans may resist having their lives chipped into full slavery, so they want to reduce legitimate military force, and start developing private military the likes of the private military contractors in Iraq, and those sub contracting for the Homeland Security Agency. Well, that’s just some crazy talk… What the Navy probably want to do is lower the profile of the carrier design, stabilize it using a double or triple hull design (like a catamaran) to improve take off and landing ability, and cover the landing surface with a super structure to protect readied aircraft from salt and other weather effects, that would improve combat readiness and extend aircraft service.

What the hell is wrong with those fools in dc.They keep cutting our military back,soon there will no military and we will be speaking Russian or reading the Koran.John B ATKINSON usn/ret.

More of ole Donkey Ears’ job creation Plan.

We don’t need to spend more money on defense, there are no bad people in the world, all we need is love.

Stop comparing an operational decision in one area of government with a completely unrelated decsion in another. Healthcare aside, we operate WAY too many aircraft carriers at billions of dollars a year like it was the cold war and no one can justify it. We certainly still need them, but we don’t need anywhere near the number the Navy claims to need.

The EFV.…what a piece of garbage. It doesn’t work, and with all the armor on can’t float. Cutting that means they can fire GD and build something that works. (at a price the taxpayer can afford)

Jason, I’ll point out the great UN stalemate to you, After desert Storm, Clinton got told to keep the iraqi people safe, no boots on ground. Only from the air, 13 years of Northern and Southern No Fly Zones. We the people paid every penny of it. The USAF North and the Navy south. Flying 7 days aweek 365 days a year, 8 trillion dollars later, and 6 UN res’s still in full effect from 1991, we went back in. 2003.

We just got new carriers remember and they know what they are doing,got Nato U.K. thus why worry!

MARCORSYSCOM is not an acquisition organization of any excellence. Just look at their track record with MRAPs. They didn’t plan any technology growth so when the need arose for applique armor, their vehicles had to be redesigned. The Army ended up doing most of the acquisition and technology work and bailed the program out. EFV is just following the usual USMC path to irrelevance.

The whole Marine Corps treats acquistion professionals like the plague. If an officer even hints at making acquisition a career choice, his promotion potential is done.

In a further irony, the F-22 costs would have dropped dramtically had the plane been available for the nations which were clamoring for them — now those same nations are only reluctantly placing orders for a smaller number of the (as yet nonproduction) F-35.

Of course, in a major conflict with enemies targeting GPS and Mil com sats, most of these modern planes (manned and unmanned) and missiles will be useless — so time to bring back the SopWith Camel! :)

“May this be the beginning of the end of the the US/formerly British Empire that the sun never sets on! ”

And the beginning of the US as a third world country, wherein the only “fair, gentle, most kind, gererous, and peaceful” nations will be Russia and China. Yes. The world, under their benevolent guidance, will be a far better place, don’cha think?

The Constitution states clearly that the primary responsibility of the central government is to provide for the common defense of America. This administration and Congress appear to have forgotten that fact and turned towards social programs that are destroying our conuntry from within. They are taking limited funds and giving them to unconstitutional politically motivated programs. Without s strong military we are a pushover to our enemies who will be more than ratical Islamists in the near future.

It’s always so nice when school lets out and the poly sci majors can “enlighten” us with their professor’s rants. It’s really simple– in a gunfight, the better aim and bigger guns win. We want to be the ones with the big guns and better aim, not the one laying on the ground with the holes. If the other kids would stay in their own sandboxes, we would stay in ours. Unfortunately, they want to kill us and continue to train miscreants to blow up civilians and military. The world largely is waiting for us to lose our edge, and will rain their firepower on us once they think we cannot fight back effectively. With USA out of the way, they will continue to bring hell to earth. This is no secret– every enemy has made it clear that they intend to destroy us. Do we think they were just kidding? The events of 911 were just a hint of what they would do if we had no will to fight back. Like it or not, we are the only hope for peace, or what passes for peace on earth.…
Merry Christmas!

As a 30 year military retiree I agree.
SgtMaj156

Really? And just where did you get that information from..Obama. In either case, even if true, it still does not change the facts of Bob’s statement. Obama is a committed hardore anti-American leftist who detests the military. He won’t be happy till he brings this country to it’s knees both Militarily and economically.

Really? And just where did you get that information from..Obama. In either case, even if true, it still does not change the facts of Bob’s statement. Obama is a committed hardcore anti-American leftist who detests the military. He won’t be happy till he brings this country to it’s knees both Militarily and economically.

The dismantling of two Carrier Groups is yet another attempt from this administration to again weaken our military whist trying to appear willing to protect our nation. Such duplicity is sickening. It should be no surprise though: The same people who have always wanted to abolish a “standing military” are he same people who do not want our borders secure and want to sit in Berkley with flowers in their hair and love in their hearts as a deterrent to anyone (which is several major powers still), who would want to see our nation fall. Tragic and ill-conceived, especially in a time of war. I hope the President frames the Nobel Peace Prize because he will never earn anything as Commander In Chief except the lack of respect from those who serve in the Armed Forces.

Elections do have consequences and everyone is now realizing what we elected to office. Let’s start making change for the better with the 2010 elections both in the Senate and House. We need to elect people who will represent the people who elected them and not the party idealogy of the hour, like the wind blows hot and cold, north and south. He need a steady stream of thought and principle who is that America comes first, formost and always. Then in 2012 we need to change the occupant of the White House with someone who will not apologize for Americas greatness and generousity. Runnign a country is not like seating in a legislation seat and pushing the “present” button, it takes experience and love of America.

To WarScientist, (someone clearly thinks way too highly of themselves): I never voted for any of the six Presidents I served under. My oath is to the United States Constitution and to protecting zealot hippies and egotistical side-line Generals like the Liberals. I do however, agree to disagree with you. That is why people like me are such an enigma to people like you. We serve whomever is in office and we do not vote just to go to war. How stupid is that really? We supposedly loved Bush? Yeah, we loved being in the desert all these years whilst people like you sit around just thinking about how to bash us. Right.
In any case, you would not know how to defend a 7/11 let alone a nation. Get a life and go have a Latte with Hillary or Pelosi. They know just as much about National Defense as you and Sarah Palin. OUT.

Maybe if DoD works hard enough we can trim our militiary down to the size of pre-war 1939. The we can all just through rocks and spit balls and paper airplanes at our tormentors as they march through our streets in triumph. That is after we go bankrupt first. It is time to start maining changes in 2010. Contribute, work for and support the candidates who place America first and whose idealogy is conssistant with those ideal that represent a economically and militarily strong America. Change is what we need and we must work together to make it happen. We must influence the medis to be more objective; we must demand a better presenation of America’s history in our schools along with insuring that the educational process is accomplished in an unbiased manner by teachers how do not have a Liberal agenda.

can you say “Jimmy Carter ?”

OK, a little lesson on force structure for the obviously ignorant. We only have about 1/3 of our forces available to respond to a situation in the world at any time. The other 2/3 are either coming off a deployment or in work ups to deploy. So that leaves at best 4 carriers to cover the world. Add in maintenece avails. and the number is even lower. The force structure for Amphibious Strike Groups parallels Carrier Strike Groups so there will be a push to down size a big deck amphib. if this moronic logic prevails. These reductions fall on the back of our deployed troops and sailers who must fill the gap with extended deployments. So much for the Dummycrats carrying so much for our troops but we all know that was election time show boating. Obama want America’s relevance in the world to decline and align us with Europe. The Chinese and Russians are so proud of America acting like a good world neighbor because they are both doing all they can to increase their relevance. This administation is selling us down the river. Elections have consequences and lets hope we can hold on until the next election where we can fix this nonsense.

There is no country or coalition of countries in the world who could even theoretically invade the USA, impose naval blockade on the USA, or attack the USA with nukes without being destroyed in retaliation. So the USA is defended like no other country on Earth. But what you want is not defense but the ability to attack any other country with impunity, and that is not in the constitution.

Killing the EFV is best thing Gates could do. It is a deathtrap to our Marines and the absolute worse design I have ever seen. The concept is great, the implementation is crappy!

Nicely said. Most people live in this little worlds unaware or unwilling to see how the Chinese and Russians are licking their chops and chomping at the bit to see us downsize our military to a “manageable size so they can allow the millions of “insurgents called Illegal Immigrants to do what can be done-invade the US. So, if we allow this kind of Utopia Crazed Liberalism to continue our nation will not even be respected by, say Venezuela… Just look how our neighbors to the south tremble at our might…
Trust me, I hear the chatter on the streets every day– I live in Los Angeles and their are way too many Chinese and illegals for my liking and if they can just waltz right in how easy would it be for China or Russia to do the same once we castrate our military even further than Clinton did. Update, upgrade, and train, train, train, but do not send a message of weakness to nations who continually steal our technology and see our economy weaken further. Now the Dems want to chop off some more flesh? Typical.

Byron — First, thanks for the promotion. I’ll have to get you in touch with the DoD so you can make it official!! However, as normal you mis-understood the comments of the military professionals here. We were not referring to the specific attack on Pearl Harbor. A weapon system can deter attacks but it is hard to design one to do so. We were referring to the mind set — on Dec 6, 1941 the US was trying to stay out of the war. On Dec 7, 1941 the war came to us. We were resourced for peace when we should have been resourced to respond to a global war on many fronts.
And the Cold War weapons such as our ICBM and SLBM assets did deter war with an aggressive Soviet Union! They were worth every penny spent on them. The venerable B-52, as daniel admirably points out, has served for decades. It was well built. The AWACS aircraft was controversial when it was being designed but has proved to be extremely useful.
And is there a need to determine the future foes intentions — or should we manage those intentions by being ready? We should form their intentions by deterring aggressive behavior.

The QDR happens every 4 years no matter who is in office.

Hmm, do the carrier math — two carrier groups each in PAC, LANT, IO, & Med, plus two in reserve/refit, equals ten. If we drop to eight, we would most likely cover LANT/Med with two because refit/overhaul requirement won’t go away.

As for the ESV, will Marines be tasked to do over-the-horizon surface assaults so the Navy can keep their ships and landing craft out beyond range of surface-to-surface Silkworm-type weapons? If so, keep the ESV because that’s what it’s designed for.

Didn’t anyone read the news of the build up of Russian forces in Venezuela and Cuba? How about the Panama Canal being operated by the Chinese? And our new Administration and Congress wants to cut TWO CARRIER Battle Groups!

Of course, with our Blessed Obama leading our country, there may not be much of America left to defend by the time he’s done. I guess it is better to fill the gas tanks and pay the mortgages for those who want to just sit and watch grow than to defend the American way of life.

Allow me to retort:

1) I dont think too highly of myself, that would not be possible, mainly because i’m so super awesome that i myself cant even think of anything more awesome than me. Geddit?

2) The fact that you choose not fulfill your civic duty of voting doesn’t make you special, it just makes you part of the crowd. I think it’s really cute how you proclaim how you never voted, like somehow it’s something other people should work for a life-time to achieve. I’m afraid on the political front you’re on about the same level as your average coke-dealer.

3) So you dont vote but will follow whoever appears to be in authority blindly into war. Then you ask me how stupid that is? I feel kinda bad about answering that because it’s such a freebie.

4) I do in fact know how to defend a 7/11, it’s quite easy. All you have to do is lock the door.

WarScientist up up and away!! **swooshing noise as our hero flies off into the sunset**

I can not believe the thought process I have witnessed over the past several months from the current administration. We are doomed to re-live the past! They always claim after these types of tragedies “never again”, until the next politician looking to make a name for themselves comes in and they think they are smarter then the last!

You don’t suppose the Joint Cheifs of Staff have a smidgen more information and experience and knowledge as you? Or do you only listen to FAUX NOISE and Glen Beck for your military prowess.

As a retired senior Sargent I respect my Commander in Cheif and pray for him and our country. Does he do wrong? All of us have e4xcept one and he met his fate on Calgary.

bob? if your going to wanting to be respected, give respect.

Yeah, i hate friggin immigrants too.…. coming to our country and getting all the best jobs like being a garbage man, or cleaning the sewer, or working 12 hour shifts in the factory. Man I’m SO jealous.

Just a quick update: Unless you are a native american (you know, the ones with the casinos and reservations that almost got themselves ethnically cleansed) you’re STILL an immigrant. You may be a 3rd or 4th or even 5th generation immigrant, but you’re still an immigrant.

Don’t diss the immigrants, if it weren’t for them you guys wouldnt even HAVE a country.

To the original poster, Cutting carrier groups directly undermines america’s ability to project force throughout the world, and directly goes against the USA’s primary strategic objective of having complete dominance of both the atlantic and pacific oceans.

I Guess O wants to redistribute the wealth of a strong military. Sounds like a peanut farmer to me.

Not saying this is a reason to keep the vehicle but, if the EFV is canceled, the sad irony will be that we will have spent 20 years and enormous sums of money on development, but the only country to end up with an advanced amphibious assault vehicle is China (based on our design of course). http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​A​P​A​-​P​L​A​-​A​A​A​V​.​h​tml

Invasions, like slight of hand do not have to begin with a blockade or with military action alone. Subversion, infiltration, and of course, economic attacks are only the beginning. As I stated, yes, by all means, upgrade our fleets, however, do so with a plan that maintains a strong and capable military “just in case”. Nobody thought Japan could ever come so close as to be able to attack us, let alone have the entire West Coast open to invasion, (if the battle of Midway was lost), but it happened. And the ability to attack by conventional means is always the better solution than nuclear war. And the US is defended, but not as well as it should be.
When you buy a new car you have to still have one to drive until you are in your new car. You simply do not throw you old car away and hope you can get one in a timely manner. As for the Marines, they do need better equipment. We have too often bastardized them in terms of getting them newer equipment. And Mitko, only those who do not understand how many nations out there want to see the United States fall are naive enough to misinterpret a strong defensive capability with the desire to “attack any other country with impunity”. Our Constitution is for the protection of the United States, not to protect the entire world.
As previously stated, upgrade while utilizing existing superior forces, then replace outdated equipment with wise and tactically sound timetables. You don’t park your tanks, mothball them, (oh, Clinton did that in 93), then wonder why we have no suitable replacements to wage a war, let alone win one. And, there is no need for a coalition of countries to band together to “theoretically invade the USA”, because only a few terrorists did plenty of damage on their own. All it takes is for the Untied States to be perceived as weak and impotent for nations to form an alliance against us. If Hugo Chavez can be so bold, what makes you think China and Russia or India might see us as vulnerable if we continue to diminish our military to level incapable of defending a border, let alone a nation? Think about it…

The problem with the EFV is the Marines have been trying to defy the laws of physics with it. They want an AAV AND a Bradley in the same vehicle. One is supposed to be light and drive quickly through the water. The other is supposed to be heavy, armored, mine resistant, and drive deep inland. You can’t do both and expect the vehicle to accomplish either task very well. Unfortunately the Marines didn’t learn the Army’s lesson in designing the Bradley and now they’ve spent over a decade and a fortune making a giant paper weight.

I hear the Chinese are interested in adding some carriers to their navy, perhaps we can sell them a couple of battle groups…(or just hand them over since they pretty much have a trillion dollar ‘store credit’ already).…and then we wouldn’t have to worry about the expense of disposing of them.

I have to address the poster who stated our nation is a continuance of the British Empire-NUTS!
I also hate to use Star Trek as an example, but since it is an iconic demonstration of how even in a Galaxy, (no more nation exist on Earth in that Federation), a strong fleet and military presence is still required because there are always going to be nations or persons, (Hitler, Kim Jong II, or even Obama), who want to see the United States fall.
I will make it simple for some of you out there there who have never tasted the rancor and putrid smell of death in combat-you need a great defense so as not to have to throw a “hail mary” pass in every conflict. Carriers are a deterrent plain and simple. And although many may feel that amphibious landing craft might be out dated it the idea that they are out there and filled with well trained US Marines that is also a deterrent. Mike Tyson used to knock people out with power, yes, but it was his reputation that won most of his early fights before they even started. If you respect an opponent that is one thing. If you fear them, well, you might not want to step into the ring at all.
We spend hundreds of billions developing new equipment every year. We have people sitting around designing new weapons all the time. Do we have to use them? No. If we have them and we need them is that not better then not having them and needing them? If our leaders, (I laugh at that, because they do not lead, they lobby), understood that fully we would not have to cut back on maintaining our military because it would be just as important if not more so than all the money we spend supporting other nations. In terms of whether or not we are Imperialistic, I say no. We, the people who serve this nation have haughty ideals of ruling the World. We put on a uniform, (at least those of us who hold true to our oaths), and have only the desire to see our nation passed on to our children better than when we served.
In no way does overspending aid this aim, but neither does lower our defenses and hoping no coalition or nation ever finds us, (or perceives us as vulnerable), weak and ripe for invasion.
I see all these stickers on cars here in California with, “I love (fill in the blank) this nation, and that nation. Well, I love my nation, and I want to see it around for a few more centuries, or at least long enough to reach it’s true potential. If that means we have to have the bigger stick, then so be it.
I say we truly start to defend our nation, expel all invaders, (you know who they are), and hold our Congress and State Legislators to task. Period.
It is easier to maintain a military than to rebuild one from scratch… Ask Germany about that.

The larger strat­egy debate would seem to embrace such cuts, or at least make them eas­ier to pro­pose. Gen. Hoss Cartwright, vice chair­man of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that the ven­er­a­ble two major the­ater war strat­egy was dead.

“The mil­i­tary require­ment right now is asso­ci­ated with the strat­egy that we are lay­ing out in the QDR, and it is a depar­ture from the two major the­ater war con­struct that we have adhered to in the past and in which this air­craft [the F-​​22] grew up. I mean it grew up in that con­struct of two major the­ater wars, and both of them being of a peer com­peti­tor qual­ity,” Cartwright said.

Simple response. We have two major coastlines, one porous border, and there are more than just a few nations out there who would just love our beachfront property and agricultural infrastructure to feed their billions of hungry people. Peer quality? Please. No disrespect, but the Afghans kicked the Soviets rear ends and they had horses and a few Stingers. A determined foe need not be a sane adversary…they just have to be crazy enough to want to attack us. The Japanese of of old saw that as their opportunity to bring down our fleet and they almost succeeded… And we did not perceive them as a “Peer” of quality then, but as inferior. How wrong we were…

The people making all the scuff about the “overspending” on Military, a.k.a. Protection, just want the money for their pockets. The health care plan is being written and pushed by people who will not be using it or better yet, paying for it. So they don’t care about John Q. Public’s well-fare or health care.

cjb6465– you are obviously incapable of rational thought. Your comment is worthless. I question whether you have the capacity for critical thinking. What is the value of stating our president will be happy when ‘he brings this country to it’s knees’? You are ridiculous.

Obama is not a friend of the military no matter how he and his staff hides it by throwing a little money at the veterans. He held off on his announcement for the troops in Afghanistan while troops and us parents worried every day and night about their safety and when would help come. Obama is a COWARD. Only after 3 months of waiting and building up the suspense he made it into a publicity stunt just to make him look good. He is not reacting to the economic crisis he is the economic crisis. Today he accepts the Nobel Peace prize for himself though he knows he did nothing and yesterday he sent 6 million dollars of our money to Hillary’s campaign employee as a payoff.

President Regan would be shaking in his grave. What ever happened to the 600 ship Navy?

Nahhhhhh you have to be a Liberal! How did you get that out what I wrote? It is in the constitution to defend and protect this great Republic! What I was clearly saying is that we do not want our military to be degraded to a level of non-effectiveness and weak. The terrorist flew two aircraft into the World Trade Center knowing the strength of our military, what do you think they will do when they determined we are weaker in the future. Your comments about a country invading the US I will defer to you; a coalition is more feasible in concert with an economic collapse brought on by an out of control congress controlled by Liberals either Republicans or Democrats — just open your eyes and you will see what is coming with the breeze straight at thee! Now is the time to straight planning to make changes by influencing as many people as possible to get out and vote for the betterment of our Republic during the 2010 elections. We do not need socialized medicine or central government control. Making this change starts with all of who have served our country. Be well my friend for the manificent men and women are standing wtch on the walls protecting our freedom„

Paulwsc,

Thank you for making such sense. Your words are right on the mark. Lenin (everybody should remember him) once said that we will surround the United States and eventually it will fall into our hands like a ripe fruit. He did not say exactly like that but what I wrote is close enough.

Well let’s see Russians in Cuba and Venezuela, Chinese operating the Panama Canal (and oh thanks Jimmy Carter — we all remember the peanut farmer who wanted to be President). China hold a lot of our debt, a Congress and Senate hell bent on destroying our health system, two moron’s who crashed the White House Party (what does that have to do with this) it demonstrates competency levels. So we worry about nonsense while the word turns and situation changes, in the parlance of tactical assessments the news medium and many Americans are lacking situational awareness which is very dangerous.

It is time for the American people to wake-up and smell the smoke because it is burning the eyes and nostrils of our freedom.

It so great to hear from people who care and are aware. We must get into the American peoples heads and wake them up to the risks we face and the biggest challange is once they are awake is to keep the aware and interested. You words were excellent and BOT!

Here’s a better idea; why don’t we just disband our armed forces and then send first class plane tickets to the U.S. to all the terrorists worldwide. Ludicrous.

Nice idea, but can we drill holes in the bottms first and then seal the holes with filling material that will desolve and allow the ship to sink. It was worth thought

Eric,

What are you smoking, rope?

Good Morning Colonel Phillips,

Since everyone else has wondered off topic, I don’t see why we can’t ourselves.

First off the mindset of 12/06/41, I agree just as in 9/11/01 there were clear indicators that were missed, over look, ignored etc. that could have at least warned of the impending attacks. That said the decisions to ignore these warning signs were not from the military, but the civilian establishments/ bureaucracies and the political decision in both cases that were made years before the event. In my opinion, in our system the militaries job is to fight the wars, not determine who we fight, I think the Constitution is very clear on that.

The Cold War is a study in and of itself. The Soviet Union was real and as I recall very intimidating to the US. We had Nike Bases all over the country even though the military knew that the Soviets lacked any bomber that could make it to CONUS. We, the AF’s SAC had starting in the early ’50’s with the B-36 24/7/365 in the skies ready to retaliate any strike from the Soviets and later the Chinese. The Army under the airborne mafia of Taylor, Ridgeway and Gavin bought the Honest John, Davy Crockett, Dart and a host of other tactical level nuclear systems and attempted to build the Army around the Pentomic Division.

I could go on but I’m sure see where I’m going. We did all this even though several respected economists relaying on evidence and numbers showed where the Soviet Union was going to fail. As a college student in the ’60’s I saw these numbers and not from some LDS spaced out liberal professor but from a professor that had been an economists for both Ford and GM in the 30’s-’40’s and 50’s, he was very conservative.

The nuclear issues was perhaps the most interesting. I don’t know of one military officer including General Curtis LaMay who claimed that nuclear weapons had any military value as a tactical weapon. All of them considered them purely a retaliation weapon aimed at the economic infrastructure and the civilian population. Also the military knew that the Soviets until the mid 1970’s couldn’t launch a first strike. They lack the ability to arm a weapon in flight and the CIC was so rigid that one a command was given it couldn’t be retracted.

The irony is that the US through Finland let the Soviet think they obtained our method of arming a weapon from a Finish spy when it was a deliberate plant. We didn’t see the need for them to bomb themselves in some accidental event.

Later in the 1990’s when China was showing an interest in nuclear ICBM’s passed the same information to the Chinese via. a leak from Lockheed.

We also did the same with Toshiba 1980’s when we let them sell to the Soviets via Finland a computer controlled milling machine that could produce submarine propellers in one piece. The thing here was we had given Toshiba the software that had a “bug” in it that in effect printed an individual ID on every propeller the Soviets made, they never caught on.

There are many ways “Colonel” to fight a war.

Daniel made the point of using legacy weapons to fight our wars now, which of course is true. One has to consider that in the last third of the 20th. Century when these platforms were designed the best thinking available said the next war was to be in Norther Europe with the Soviet Union. If give a choice I would guess that nearly all current military officers wold rather have other platforms the having to make due with these relics. Of course that is the danger we now face with what ever the future holds.

Right now the US has no peer competitors in any weapons or systems that the US has decided to build. I would think that because of the US’s lack of interest in short/medium and long range ballistic missiles both China and Russia are ahead of us in development and operational fielding of these weapons. Frankly sir that the only possible are where we maybe lacking.

I still see future conflicts from non peer groups with an idealistic/religious agenda or political cells from economic developing areas of the world and of course from with in the United States.

These groups in no way become competitive in the types of platforms and systems the QDR is considering. We have three wars in essence going on at once now, each different and at different stage of the conflict and frankly I don’t see how the F-35 can play a roll not already being done, what difference one carrier battle group makes. On carriers it is of interest that from WWII through Vietnam they deployed to combat areas with 95 aircraft now the bigger and more capable carriers only take 65 or fewer aircraft out with them to combat zones. The utility of a $10,000,000.00 I would think is self explanatory. When was the last time the Marines did an opposed beach landing, Inchon 1950?

He** sir, don’t settle for an 06, have them do an Eisenhower and go to 08. He** sir, theirs a war going on don’t they know that?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Hey Jason (December 9th, 2009 at 6:40 pm). And just which wars did Bush start, exactly?

Blazer (December 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm)

Good question:

“President Regan would be shak­ing in his grave. What ever hap­pened to the 600 ship Navy?”

Answer? Bill Clinton used it to “balance the budget”

we need a large miltary force for one day we will have to put china in there place it is coming

Every time the Democraps get in power the military takes it in the gut. Remember Clinton. The Air Force was down in operation planes deadlined for parts that we couldn’t afford. the Army was crippled too so that Clinton could take care of the Illegal immigrants etc. Now it’s the same old tune. Do we need another Pearl Harbor or another 9/11 ?

If we are unwilling to kill the enemy, destroy their ablity to survive, devistate there countries and they know that we are unwilling to uterly devistate them then all the weapons that we can concieve of and build are useless.

whats a “sargent”?

Not saying this is a reason to keep the vehicle but, if the EFV is canceled, the sad irony will be that we will have spent 20 years and enormous sums of money on development, but the only country to end up with an advanced amphibious assault vehicle is China (based on our design of course). http://​www​.ausairpower​.net/​A​P​A​-​P​L​A​-​A​A​A​V​.​h​tml

Hey, why don’t you go try to do the maintenance yourself on this crap that the senile b-movie actor shoved back into “service” for his phony “600-ship Navy” long after it should all have been scrapped? Oh, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and couldn’t clean a deck with a brush? SURPRISE. All repukelicans are idiots by definition.

This should be considered as temporary cut as they may be usefull later on, if in the event of a crises conflict with Iran and N. Korea. Also in addition to our(USA) arsenal. We may want to consider creating advance fast, long range multiple, missile boats.

MAYBE, use the STIMULUS money to put people to work building the Military crafts…people working, strong defense..win-win

Do we really need airplanes we cannot afford to lose? Are aircraftcarriers of any use without sufficient airpower? Do we really need eleven of them? In my vision it is time that congress starts listening to what the military really needs instead of trying to push on them what the manufacturers want to sell. The Airforce is broke thanks to Gates. Lets first fix the existing problems.

Out of 10 carriers 2 will be refitting and restocking at home at any given time, 1 is always in the Atlantic, 1 in the Pacific, leaving 6 that can be deployed elsewhere. However carriers will be always moving back and forth to replace others on station. Possibly giving a maximum of four that are available to deploy to any global hotspot.

There is easily a requirement for 11 or 12 carrier battle groups and NO excuse for retiring one of the Nimitz class CVNs early. Our Navy is already in bad enough shape as it is.

Despite the rantings of Byron and others who rapidly dismiss any threat posed by the rest of the world, we must maintain a strong Navy and continue developing new systems for it. Remember the 600 ship Navy gentlemen? Well we can certainly afford an up-to-date 300+ ship Navy.

Now one of the central missions of the Marine Corp is to be able to perform amphibious operations. The EFV is necessary if the Navy wants to stick to this “over the horizon” concept, yet even if we abandon that we still need a replacement for old AAVP. This vehicle should certainly an amphibious capability, even if it lacks the range and speed of the EFV.

The F-35? I find it funny that Byron and others are attacking the program despite the fact that their similar attacks on the F-22 leave us with NO effective alternative for our air-power needs. Something needs to replace the large numbers of F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, and AV-8s that will be retiring in the next decade. It would be impractical and very costly to refurbish and maintain these aircraft beyond their planned retirement dates. Many are outclassed by upgraded Flankers and Fulcrums as well.

Regarding the USAF, upgraded F-15s are highly capable but aren’t much cheaper than a new F-22. Upgraded F-16s have a limited range and lack growth potential. Regarding the Navy, F/A-18 Hornets also lack growth potential and range compared to their larger Super Hornet cousins. And the Super Hornet, while a fine aircraft should be supplemented by true 5th generation aircraft.

The AV-8 Harrier? Unless somebody wants to develop a new VTOL aircraft, the is no alternative to the F-35B. The Harrier II is no longer in production, and many of the airframes in service have plenty of hours on them.

I think you need to go back on your meds. Your statements are preposterous at best.

You’re an idiot for saying that Americans loved Bush. We hate all our politicians uniformly. It’s our duty.

This administration is just tossing the military right out the door. I am sure a lot of military veterans are also seeing what is happening. This is NOT GOOD.

U.S. Citizens are living in a dream world where non one has responsibility for their actions and the world has always been a peaceful place to live in. Read your history. Ego seems to always get in the way.
Better keep a strong Armed Forces. Historically the World has always been at war and it is wiser to be the country with the strongest military and the greatest compasion to lead with fair justice.

Yeah, naturally the rest of the world wants a U.S. president who will give them a reach-around whenever they ask for it. Fortunately, enough American people still look first and foremost for a president who acts in the interest of the UNITED STATES, and not the socialist losers with economies that the state of California puts to shame by itself. We still have the strongest economy, the strongest military, the best universities, the best hospitals, the best doctors, the most technical innovation in medicine, commercial and military industries, and we are able to defend ourselves and our interests at the time AND the place of OUR CHOOSING while the European countries lose their sovereigity to the EU and depend on the United States for defense and to keep NATO and the U.N. relevant organizations that would otherwise be nothing more than a smoldering pile of garbage (although, a case could be made that the U.N is still a smoldering pile of garbage anyways).

The rest of the world would love to see us come down to their level, and the first step to that is neutering our military so we lose control over our interests outside of our border. The sad European countries won’t even actively defend themselves from terrorists, they just bend over and take it while voting themselves more handouts from their government and blaming all their problems on the United States.

I love this country.

The EFV is a symptom more than it’s a problem.

The problem is, the US Navy won’t go within 25 miles of the coast, because they want at least 2 missile shots at any incoming missiles. This is exacerbated, of course, by the fact the Navy is going to be left with LPD-17s as its main amphibs, which cost $1.7 billion each (about 4x what other nations’ smaller — but not 4x smaller — LPDs cost). Hence are too expensive to risk close to shore — as well as too expensive to build in numbers that can be in as many places as we want for peacetime presence/ humanitarian/ training missions.

Which means traditional amphib vehicles, which move at 4–5 knots in good seas, are hopeless.

That forces you to design an EFV with 25mph capability, but even at half that speed, the hull must be smooth to plane (not fun on land, with mines), and light, with minimal up-armoring capabilities (not fun on land, with bullets and RPGs and urban fights).

The alternative is to employ more hovercraft transports or landing craft, possibly from flo-flo (float on, float off) ships built to and from commercial standards. They’d be conveyors into the general area, but if they stay 50 or more miles from the coast and just serve as motherships/ ferry-ins, that might work.

What’s required is not so much an EFV as a complete change in the concept of operations for amphibious forced entry. EFV was a “same approach, more power/ dollars” take. It ended up hideously expensive, and based on the use of Amtracs far inland in Iraq etc. could be a future death trap for the Marines it it (15+ Marines conveniently packed in vehicle with poor protection has its drawbacks). I understand why they felt they had to do it, but I do think they gave up way too much of problem B capability in solving problem A.

As an interim buy that might fit current operations very well… the British and Dutch Marines use much smaller (and cheaper) BvS-10 tracked vehicles that are light armor, with tremendous all-terrain (and we really mean ALL terrain) mobility. They’re amphibious with minimal prep, but not fast, and aren’t the same tactical slot as a Bradley (or EFV, as attempted). They’re more “infantry enhancement” vehicles, with a very wide range of equipment fittings that can include things like anti-tank missiles, gun turrets, radars, MEDEVAC, UAV launch and ops, etc. The British really liked them in Afghanistan, and buying a bunch instead of sinking more into a not-so-great idea like the EFV might be a good way to supplement the aging Amtracs fleet with something immediately useful and useful into the future, while the whole forced entry approach is rethought.

Why would be speaking Russian is we cut back the military? Have any facts? Trends? Or are you just repeating the John Wayne rhetoric of the McCarthy era?

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Obama just passed one of the largest defense appropriations bills in US history.

A reminder.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

We are going to start a shooting war with our biggest trading partner?

Really?

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Jeez! Did anybody read the article, or just the headline? Does everybody understand what the QDR is or where it originated? Get a grip folks, the sky ain’t falling.

Isn’t this the “Hope and Change” that the “masses” wanted? It never seems to amaze me at the stupidity of the average American voter who doesn’t know facts, situations, events or legal limits but just “wants” and “give-me’s” for their vote. As a judge i’ve seem too many people come into the voting area not knowing the people running for office and what they stand for and not having read the items that they are voting for and yet wanting to ‘cast their vote’. It is time for the American public to get educated and stop paying the price for poor judgement — like the current administration that is raping the military again for the money for the non-working welfare programs to ‘buy votes to keep them in office’. The old Roman saying of “If you want peace — prepare for war’ is both accurate and sensible. Those who have to fight for our freedoms need and deserve the best for their efforts to protect themselves and us. Fopr those who want all the welfare they can get without working to help themselves — do without and/or get a job!!

THe rest of the world is not so civilized as you may think War Scientist. Have you ever left the USA and been to some of the third world places where they hated Americans long before GW Bush was elected? I doubt it. After you have lived somewhere else in the world maybe you might get some enlightenment. You probably were the kid who always got beat up because he was afraid to fight back. THE rest of us learned as kids that when you fight back, the bullys left you alone.

The greatest military on the earth — EVER — brought civilization back when they wuz cuntry boys from the Colonies and it wuz just because of how UN-civillized and hateful it was — that’s old school.

With what will you replace freedom? “Chaostan” is when you run shy of ammo in a firefight and look at this way, the banksters took enough TARP funds to build the 5thgenmil. Another bite is the lost jobs. Don’t get me started.

We are all family seperated by meniacal forces not fully understood by all and as long as that meniacal force stays put down, no problem. In the real world, the scenario is “the sky is falling” and the State Champs show to win & more .… take a bow AMERICA~!

Most of the socialist countries you call losers have higher standards of living and education than the US. Plus they have better, cheaper healthcare, a stronger denomination and many of them are already coming out of a Depression caused by the US.

In what way are they losers other than your claim?

BTW, Canadians, French, Germans, Dutch, British, all socialists, are fighting shoulder to shoulder with the US.

That said, what are you talking about?

Respectfully

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Why shouldn’t we prepare for the possibility regardless of our economic ties? Who knows what our relationship with them will be 10 years from now?

The politicians and defence dept sure as hell don’t learn from history. In world war 2, it was’nt for the most part the quality of our weapons , and that of our allies, that helped us beat the axis powers. It was the fact that we could out produce them in manufacturing by having simple and reliable weapons. No need to get overcomplicated in your procurement of weapons systems. As nice as the F-22 and F-35 are, if our enemy can afford to field 3 planes for every 1 we build, we’re going to have problems. Hell not only have we gotten over complicated in these systems, proven designs like the F-14 and A-10 get killed early at the expense of them. And great idea to kill 2 carriers at a time when the chinese and russians are flexing there muscles on the seas. It’s not like WW2 where we had the luxury of time and distance. If we ever lost a carrier in combat, we would’nt have time to replace it, not when it takes 6 years to build.

Killing programs that’s the just what we need in such hard economic times. You individuals that thik it saves money clearly have litle or no understanding how thing actually work. Instead of spending funds on the purchase of an item wether it be planes, trains or automobiles will be funneled into “give away programs” where ther money brings in nothing in return. Programs like the EFV, cariers etc. employ numerous individuals accross the United States is it wise to kill such programs and drive unemployment higher? Can anyone argue that it’s better to have people employed rather than waiting for unemployment to run out, missing payments, loosing a house etc?

The EFV is hardly on the verge of entering service… FOC is not until something like 2025!!!! As for working out the problems, they have no idea. New prototypes won’t even be ready for testing until next year, if they are lucky. The program spent over $1.3 billion over ten years and produced nothing worthwile, basically had to start over again after failing MS “C”. When is it time to pull the plug? The Corps needs the capability, absolutely. The current program just isn’t the answer, and most likely never will be.

opine
Just as I have mentioned here since 2007, the OBNA CZARS and Oval Office Sofa SItters have the DOD dead on in their sights. REductions via budgets, Reviews, and MSM negative press will do the job, adequately.
By 2015 our DOD will be a hollow shell, AKA the Carter Fiasco years.
end
Semper FI.

As to remove all doubt about availability of funding the Democrats have increased non-defense discretionary spending from $355 billion in FY08 to $410 billion in FY09 no to $447 billion in FY10 so basically $100 billion extra for food stamps, welfare and other spending. Yup no money for F-22s or carrier battle groups!

I know you are going to say that many of these sys­tems served in Vietnam, which sir they did, but I ask you is the F-​​100 the best pos­si­ble plat­form to drop naplam form a few hun­dred feet, or the F-​​105 was the best choice of a ground attack air­craft in North Vietnam (con­sider the losses of air crews of the F-​​105), or was the F-​​101 the best photo recon. plane, were these the most cost effec­tive plat­forms and sys­tems we could have used
OPINE
Sir
Your list forgot the best. THE A6A and A6B, USMC grunts will long remember the accuracy of the BNs and the Aircraft for Close Air Support. I imagine there are a few North Vietnamese that recall the A6As going Downtown as well.
The Navy A7A and A7B were also, well used with minimal losses.
bt
The aircraft of that day served us well, albeit the WW2 Ammo used did not, AKA MacNamaras Ammoo.
end
Semper Fi

To save itself (and foreign buyers?), the F-35 program office is now required to brief up the chain early next year on it’s choice of F-35 capabilities that will be abandoned or delayed as well as how they are going to compress the RDT&E schedule so that procurement timelines won’t be impacted. There is also a looming Nunn-Mcurdy breach (~40% cost growth) that may serve as a lever to re-baseline the program. Although probably “too big to fail”, I wouldn’t be suprised at considerable “reverse scope creep” and restructuring.

Vote them out in 2010.

We have a “TheDieHard” here at the bomb factory too. They are usefull to turn the bolts, but our is getting “RIF” next week. True puppets of the socialists.

Three things to consider in the 10 year look that may or may not appear (just a few thoughts, take or leave):
1) some type of manned fighter/bomber should be kept in some number due to electromagnetic environment x bandwidth to UAVs. If someone can kill our bandwidth or severely degrade it, then UAVs become useless unless VERY autonomous. If we can secure the EM environment and have the bandwidth, UAVs are the way to go.
2) Space will be in the battle-space very soon even for ‘stan type conflicts. Any Intermediate missile is a possible satellite killer. Very likely the ability to wack a satellite will move to smaller and smaller bad guys. Ditto Cyberspace here. Lesser and lesser minds will have the ability to cause greater and greater havoc in the data-sphere.
3) The lack of technical labor in this country in the next ten years will affect our ability to field good technical warriors and acquisition people. Need a plan to get high school/grade school kids into technical majors asap.

3)

3) Karamazov’s out there waiting.

4) Hawk a few bonds.

5) 13

Good Evening POTC USN,

Since there will always have to be a nuclear carrier in construction, a carrier has a fifty year service life and it takes about five years to construct a carrier, the force is unlikely to go below ten regardless of need.

Mr thinks your job is safe.

Tenn. Slim. The A-6’s, A-7’s along with the then aging A-4 Hawk were all great planes that ended up performing service they were not designed for. Most of the platforms, systems and weapons we used in Vietnam were not designed for the combat nor the environment we fought in. Like in all wars, and this is something that those who have never laced up a pair of combat boots, just can’t understand, Marines and Soldiers don’t get to pick the equipment they have to go to war with but have to adapt, gerry rig, and make it work, at least most of the time.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

If we cut out all the armed forces in this Country, who is the UN going to call to send troops?

I am not surprised at all regarding the two air craft carriers that are going away, they will most likely be put in moth balls in an inactive reserve status until the Navy can build more ships.

Until the Iraq and Afganistan War is completed I expect most of Defence budget going to direct support to the troops and equipment assigned directly to those theatres. I expect the Navy will not be rebuilding their fleet with newer ships and submarines to replace the much older technology of ships and submarines. They cannot even afford the maintenance on the ones they have. They will be taking older ships offline to support the more active fleet. This is a bad time for America because it is facing a time similar to the end of the Soviet Union and its military buildup in Afganistan etc…

I have been working for the US Navy military and civilian side for more than 25 years and nearing retirement. This is the worst position I have seen our government and military in since the Viet Nam War.

ten-year outlook (cont):

6) Gen. McChrystal admits the MONET MASTER$ (NATO — now run by the “noble” elite fielding Rasmussen (former Danish Prime Minister, former President of the European Union) — CURRENT Secretary General) so expect to sprechen ze NWO.

7) The United Kingdom just became a puppet-state of the EU run by a FRE**:
see: http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​P​r​e​s​i​d​e​n​t​_​o​f​_​t​h​e​_​Eur
so, consider “eufrrprc-5thgenmil” in the hands of madmen.

8) Every surfer knows waves come in in sets (Norsemen, end of the Roman era and the revived holy roman (german) empire: WWI, WWII, etc.) so WHEN the emperor’s hammer falls again, WE’re not going to be worrying about who the UN (aka money-master puppet) is going to call (we’re already mired in the swamp), we’ll be wondering who is US gonna call?

9) 13

yeah, blame obama..who got us into this mess in the 1st place? Keep that F-15SE line pumping, we are gonna need ‘em…

10) Consider constructing a small fleet of fast-attack mini (UAV-launcher) carrier groups and funding US jobs with some of the toll-road monies the emperor’s collecting at the end of Oil lane, Opium drive, Gas boulevard and Hash road – highways bought with US blood.

United States is rich in natural resources and some domestic localities still needed to explore, research and adobt modern technology to generate green energy. What we need is to maximize the exploration, production, and exportation of our oil , gas, gold, platinum resources aside from green energy to domestic and international clients and allies to boost the economy and the needed funds for job creations and expantion and modernization of our navy, army and airforce.

I would point out that there is a difference between cutting a program and cutting the total defense budget. In reality, the assumption in the DoD as well as the Obama White House is that defense spending will remain constant or contain modest increases relative to inflation for the foreseeable future. Keep in mind that in the only defense budget Obama has submitted contained an increase over the last defense budget sent to congress by the Bush Administration. The cutting of programs like the F-22 were not the result of cutting the amount of resources the nation spends on defense, but rather shifting priorities within the overall defense budget.

The critical factor in planning for the future of defense is not equipment costs, but personal costs. We are not going to put hard limits on health care costs like the rest of the industrial world does, because that is socialist, and socialist is bad. But taxes are also bad, and even the most committed hawk is going to jump ship at some point when faced with a military with more than two million members, all of whom receive health care for themselves and their families, and the price of that health care grows at three or more times the cost of inflation every year. Given that, committing to a ship with a crew in the neighborhood of 7,000, or an air wing with its massive maintenance staff, or a combined arms brigade, or any other large fixed investment becomes a much more difficult prospect.

Just to set the record straight on the EFV, you can debate the operational requirement for the capability to do Force Entry Off-Shore Over-the-Horizon from both sides of the argument. But don’t make statements that are incorrect on the survivability of the vehicle. At it’s current weight and configuration the EFV has 14.5mm AP protection 360 and 30mm frontal. It does 25–30 knots in sea-state 3 and 45 mph on hardball roads. A very capable combat vehicle that the USMC needs to replace the AAV that is approaching 40 years old.

elections have consequences.…..

If no-one ever liked Bush, then i guess it is true that 51% of americans had been drinking at the time of the election. Having lived in the UK i can tell you that that kind of rampant alcoholism will have serious consequences 5–10 years down the road.

Don’t drink & vote!

There is no such thing as an unwinnable war, and did you forget what happened on 9/11/01 that lead to the conflict in Afghanistan in he first place?! Or are you one of those brainwashed liberals who thinks it was all an evil conspiracy plotted by Dick Cheney in his secret dungeon under the Pentagon? You can’t blame the economy on George Bush as everybody was responsible for that disaster. And your “Dear Leader” Obama is continuing George Bush’s massive deficit spending at a higher rate than ever!

George Bush trashed America’s reputation? Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? There are some who will always hate us and our nation and no matter times how many times Obama bows before foreign leaders, this will not change!

Did you happen to see George Bush’s opposition? John Kerry couldn’t win an election if his opponent was a ham sandwich. In the end John Kerry probably wouldn’t have done any better even if he did get voted in.

Back in 2004 there wasn’t this economic mess, George Bush was still relatively popular, and nobody recognized it would take another 5 years to create a stable Iraqi government which could fight the insurgents and terrorists.

Yet those “socialist” nations have weak militaries and governments that will bend over backwards when faced by any sort of danger. If not for us they would be entirely at the whims of the Russians (oil supply), and Chinese. The European healthcare “solution” involves rationing and long waiting periods, higher taxes, and cannot be applied successfully in a larger nation like the United States. Meanwhile, our healthcare system, despite it flaws, encourages most of the world’s medical developments. I would much rather have my tax dollars going to nation defense than more welfare $ so Democrats can buy some votes.

“Seriously, for once you have a president who can read as well as write, be happy with what you’ve got! ”

So you’ve seen Obama’s College transcripts? No one else has. Or his high school one’s for that matter.

In point of fact, Bush had better grades than your heros John F’n Kerrey and Al Gore, and a Master’s degree from Harvard.

Am I missing something or is the QDR an independent product from the current political party in power?

I do however agree that Congress has far overstepped it’s Constitutional powers. Spending a trillion on healthcare? I think I missed the right to free healthcare in that document. Congress simply needs to be reigned in. That’s for We the People to do at the ballot box.

Yeah but too many of the people would rather have free things given to them then have that money be spent keeping a strong national defense.

What’s for free? The health care people will have to buy into? We’ve already got the strongest national defense, by far. Can’t say the same about health care. Anywho. QDR is a recommendation, is it not? Congress will vote on what the USA will buy, whether it needs it or not.

It is not whether we need a new carrier/planes but do we have the money to pay for them? The USA’s steel industry has moved to China. Our automotive industry is offshore or automated. Automation does not pay taxes. Your paycheck is what you should worry about.

guys wake up it doesn“t matter china will own them all in a few years anyway

Do you even know what you are talking about? You want to know a country that is ruled by its military…look to CHINA. It takes a military to protect its citizens. Have you tried it?

Not I.…

Where are you from…?

I may not have a strong suit as a strategist, but when I read JANES and look at what kind of Navy our prospective enemies have, I have to wonder how we can’t take this small cutback. Crap, the world can’t even field an aircraft carrier fleet as big as ours! I agree that we should keep them going maybe on a slower time table so we don’t lose our industrial ability to build such things, That would take more than five years to recover from, I guarantee.

As far as the EFV, why not design a fast attack platform that will float a regular Bradley type vehicle instead. Then the fast attack floating platform could disgorge this cheaper fighting vehicle well into shore. Such a platform could even be made expendable, if beached so bad it can’t be recovered.

I just cant’ help thinking there are smarter ways to spend our money. As fast as aircraft engineering is advancing I wouldn’t doubt that a better design than the F-35 would surface, then we will all be so glad we didn’t waste more money building too many of them. I don’t see a replacement for the VTOL capabilities of the swiveling butt hole jump jet, though. If anything, perhaps more of the few F-35 being made should retain the superstructure of the VTOL design, so it can be converted to them later. The lifting midsection, and special rear duct module could be added later. Perhaps this is an impossible feat.

I feel more of the modern fighter/bomber platform designs should be made more repairable. This is why the aging F-15 fleet is so unrepairable. When composite science came out back then, the only removable part was the titanium center structure. The combination of other airframe parts made it too expensive to repair, you may as well redesign an entire new aircraft! We need to get more lifetime out of our airframes the way the B-52 was. I realize this is a tall order for composite technology with stealth also being a requirement, but I’m not convinced smart thinking couldn’t solve these design parameters.

I also feel it is totally unfair for the US to baby set the whole world on defense. It is obvious that strength and power have maintained world wide piece for over 40 years; why cant the rest of NATO and the pacific rim pony up some responsibility here? Why do we always have to pay the piper. This is one thing that really sticks in my craw. We can’t sell a thing to the EU or the rest of the world but they are Johnnie on the spot to sell us their crap.

I think we should be tying our defense spending to our foreign debt. the more defense spending we have to come up with to defend the rest of the lazy shiftless free world the less debt we owe them! I’m getting radical feelings about this, You have to admit it is TOTALLY unfair we have to protect the whole world with hardly any cost to them. RIDICULOUS!!!!!

“If anything, perhaps more of the few F-35 being made should retain the superstructure of the VTOL design, so it can be converted to them later. The lifting midsection, and special rear duct module could be added later. Perhaps this is an impossible feat.”

The F-35 is already designed that way. Between the Air Force “A” variant, the Marine Corp’s “B” variant, and the Navy’s “C” variant, they all share 85% parts commonality.

“I feel more of the modern fighter/bomber platform designs should be made more repairable. This is why the aging F-15 fleet is so unrepairable. When composite science came out back then, the only removable part was the titanium center structure. The combination of other airframe parts made it too expensive to repair, you may as well redesign an entire new aircraft! We need to get more lifetime out of our airframes the way the B-52 was. I realize this is a tall order for composite technology with stealth also being a requirement, but I’m not convinced smart thinking couldn’t solve these design parameters.”

The F-15, F-16, A-10, and F/A-18 weren’t meant to be used as long as we have used them. They were designed during the Cold War with “planned obsolescence.” That is, a new fighter is supposed to be designed 10 years later, so that they can replace the previous fighters after 20 years of service. The F-15 was introduced in 1972, designs for the F-22 was initially drawn up in 1986. The F-22 took too long and became too expensive to come on line, and so in 2007 (35 years after the F-15’s introduction) structural integrity problems came to light when one broke apart in flight.

Also, certain parts simply can’t be repaired. These fighters undergo high g-forces in-flight, which creates metal fatigue in the structure. Aircraft panels and bulkheads can have band-aid fixes for small cracks in the form of beef-up plates, however they add weight and beef-up plates on the panels detract from the aircraft’s aerodynamics. You can’t add beef-up plates to certain panels and bulkheads that are in critical stress areas, and the cracks can grow beyond beef-up plates. You can stop-drill stringers with small cracks, but once again it’s a band-aid fix and cracks can grow beyond the holes of the stop-drill process. Welds would not be able to absorb the in-flight stresses properly on panels, bulkheads, stringers and other structural components.

Each engine on an F-15 is only held in place by three very big bolts. If the bolt’s engine mount was cracked, it’s far better and safer to replace it. Would you really have confidence in a repaired engine mount’s ability to withstand 28,000 pounds of thrust?

The F-15 is a lot more repairable than you think, especially compared to the U-2… which has been flying for 52 years now.

Original concepts for the ATF were far different from what is now the F-22. Trying to say the F-22 is outdated technology because the program began in the 1980s is simply misinformation.

Likewise you could trace the F-35 all the way back to a few late 80s, early 90s era programs. ASTOLV and MRF for example.

Thanks for that prompt reply. I have friends and relatives who work in various areas like this but they can’t be very open or discuss much about it of course. It is a relief to hear that things aren’t as dark as I suspected. But There is no doubt, we could field the F-18 for a few more years, and still be up to snuff, I feel.

Perhaps, a parts program to keep that platform flying would be more expensive than building a new general purpose aircraft, but looking at the this subject going forward for the future is nerve racking to me.

Certain parts for various older airframes become unprofitable for part’s manufacturer’s to continue producing. This is especially true when only a handful of airframes are built, such as the case with the U-2. Or when parts manufacturers move on to a new manufacturing process that isn’t compatible with some of the older parts they build.

With regard to the F-15C/D to the F-15E Strike Eagle, the E variant has about 60% different internal differences from the C/D variants. Continuing a parts line for the F-15E variant is highly viable for even a couple decades because that’s the most popular variant: majority of the various exported F-15’s (I for Israel, K for South Korea, S for Saudi Arabia and SG for Singapore) are based off of the Strike Eagle variant. Not to mention the E models have been in production as recently as 2001, with exported versions still in production.

But for the C/D variants, they will be left high and dry as those variants haven’t been produced since the late 1980’s, and more and more airframes will be retired… especially since the 2007 incident.

Yes, this reminds me what I read in Defense Update a while back. I wonder which would be more effective, building more F-18s or F-15s for replacement. I know the Air Force and Navy have each their own requirements, but for the foreseeable future, it seems we have less & less friendly ground available to land on, but can always reach targets from carriers.

Unless one is talking about keeping a minimum effectiveness for homeland air defense umbrella.

When Desert Shield kicked off prior to Desert Storm, F-15’s flew to Saudi Arabia from Florida in about 8 hours non-stop. Had USN carriers not already have been in the vicinity, it could have taken days or weeks to arrive. There are areas that the USAF has better response times where a USN carrier isn’t available; the USN covers areas the USAF would take too long to arrive.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornets can carry more missiles (10 versus the F-15’s 8). Both airframes have AESA radars (present or soon-to-be upgraded) that feature offensive and defensive electronic warfare capabilities that previously weren’t present without jammer pods. However the F-15’s possesses the more powerful and robust radar. Both also possess high off-boresight (HOBS) capability and can carry the AIM-9X. In air-to-air, the F-15’s outmatch the F/A-18’s in beyond visual range combat. And both are equal in dogfighting ability despite the F/A-18’s greater maneuverability: simulations show that two aircraft that possess HOBS capability will result in mutual suicide and maneuverability hardly becomes a factor. In the strike role, the F-15E can carry poundage and actual bombs than the F/A-18E/F… making it an effective bomb truck. However the F/A-18E/F can carry more air-to-ground (AGM) missiles, making them better for stand-off attacks against heavily defended installations.

F/A-18 and other carrier aircraft also face shorter lifespans than their airstrip-reliant brethren because carrier operations are very violent and destructive to the airframes. It’s for this reason that carrier aircraft are generally heavier, because the airframes need to be strengthened. Take for example the F-14, it’s slightly physically smaller than the F-15 however it’s empty weight (no fuel, no stores) is nearly 60,000 pounds. Yet an empty F-15 weighs 28,600 pounds and with a combat load (8 missiles, 940 cannon rounds, 2,000 gallons of internal fuel and 1,320 gallons of fuel in two external fuel tanks) it weighs about 54,000 pounds.

Both aircraft have their places. You don’t use a hammer to do a screwdriver’s job and vice-versa.

Let us hope our congress gets it right on the Fuel Tanker appropriation and project!

Thanks everyone for your very thoughtful responses!

There are very few intelligent comments being made here so I might as well add my ignorant rant to the pile. I personally don’t think the Air Force needs 2400 something F35s when the majority of their missions can be done just as well and much cheaper with Reapers and Predators and what ever unmanned aircraft comes next. Would be nice to have more F22s but the days of the manned fighter are drawing to an end it just doesn’t make sense to buy obsolescence. Right now the Navy is tying all it’s money up building ships it doesn’t need and does not have any left over for aircraft and ships it does need. Example, do we need another CVN right now or do we need a lot of small surface combatants to help patrol sea lanes for piracy and weapons proliferation? The answer is the later. Given the cost effective success the Air Force and Army have had with UAVs, why the hell has the Navy and Marine Corps been so slow to duplicate this? The Joint Chiefs and Congress need to spend our money more wisely, plain and simple.

There are very few intelligent comments being made here so I might as well add my ignorant rant to the pile. I personally don’t think the Air Force needs 2400 something F35s when the majority of their missions can be done just as well and much cheaper with Reapers and Predators and what ever unmanned aircraft comes next. Would be nice to have more F22s but the days of the manned fighter are drawing to an end it just doesn’t make sense to buy obsolescence. Right now the Navy is tying all it’s money up building ships it doesn’t need and does not have any left over for aircraft and ships it does need. Example, do we need another CVN right now or do we need a lot of small surface combatants to help patrol sea lanes for piracy and weapons proliferation? The answer is the later. Given the cost effective success the Air Force and Army have had with UAVs, why the hell has the Navy and Marine Corps been so slow to duplicate this? The Joint Chiefs and Congress need to spend our money more wisely, plain and simple.

The QDR is to review threats, Russia growing again. We have pay them to destroy nuclear weapons because they don’t have the funds. Yet, they can build a facility under a mountain the size of DC area. Yet none of our inspectors have seen the inside. Look for Yamantau Mountain. Also look how Russia flexed with Georgia.
China is building a blue water navy, buzzing USN battle groups, Jp Destroyers, and Jp Coast Guard ships while in Jp territorial waters.
Not to mention the build up of Fleet Ballistic subs, and hardened sub pens.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.