U.S. military programs at risk for cuts!

[F-15 Eagle]

I'm a bit worried that some U.S. Military programs might not survive and will ether be canceled or cut back in the 2010 defense budget. Some programs that could be at risk include:

1. F-22 Raptor
2. The U.S. Army's FCS or Future Combat Systems
3. National Missile Defense
4. DDG-1000 class Destroyer
5. V-22 Osprey
6. Next Generation Airborne Tanker
7. New 2018 Bomber
8. New U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Programs.

I think it would be a disaster if the Obama administration cancels these programs because these weapons programs are necessary to rebuild America's worn out military and defending America. I think all of these programs should be kept.

So what do you think?

 

[rjmaz1]

If some of the above programs are not cancelled then it puts all of the programs at risk.

If you cut funding of each program by even 10% it puts up the unit price and you end up with, for example, 25% less capability/numbers for only a 10% cost reduction.

This is why it is important to completely cancel a large project so that other large programs can get 100% funding. You do not want multiple programs to enter a death spiral.

The US will have to prioritise its projects.

The F-35 is without a doubt the number one priority and will not be canceled. If the budget is reduced then other programs will have to be canceled to fund the F-35. The obvious target is the F-22. Its production line will end up closing soon. The USAF will have enough F-22's to perform its niche mission, nearly all other roles the F-35 will be clearly superior on a capability per dollar basis.

The V-22 is costly but it can carry a lot more payload a far greater distance than a blackhawk for example. Being able to carry cargo at fixed wing turboprop speeds and distances while then landing vertically is worth its weight in gold. It eliminates the need of two aircraft, E.g A turboprop to carry the payload to the front line airstrip and then a smaller helicopter to carry it to the soldiers. You then have less pilots less double handling of payload and a reduced need for front line airstrips. Take all that into account and the V-22 is cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if more V-22 are ordered as they will become much cheaper.

Personally I think that the DDG-1000 destroyers should never have started due to being overkill. Conventional Arleigh Burke-class destroyers could be purchased off the shelf for a third of the cost. This would have provided a lot of money. If the DDG-1000 is cancelled with only two ships all the research will be extremely useful in the future.

Litoral combat ship is also a very expensive ship. Though in the long run its flexibility and reduced many will mean its lifecycle cost is reasonable. It will replace a patrol boat and frigate with a single expensive ship. So comparing costs to a simple frigate is unreasonable. Comparing the cost of a frigate AND patrol boat and the manning of two ships will be a better comparison.

Inflight refueling. The KC-135 has only reached a third of their fatigue life. Sure maintenance is increasing as the plane gets older and the availability will drop slightly due to maintenance but they are still good to keep flying for many years to come. I would cancel the tanker competition after talking to people in the know. Buying new aircraft is much more expensive than maintaining the current fleet. People often act like the KC-135's are dropping out of the sky.

2018 bomber, is probably not consuming much money at the moment. Its worth keeping running as it looks to be a very cheap bomber, using off the shelf technology.

Missile defense will still be a go for obvious reasons.

The Future Combat Systems for the army I do not know much about the scope of the program to give any kind of decision.


So in summary

Cancel F-22 to insure the F-35's success and domination.
Cancel DDG-1000 to improve the Navy's total ship numbers and help fund the LCS.
Delay the Tanker acquisition until well into next decade. Help fund the 2018 bomber which will reduce the need for new tankers

 

[Feanor]

You can't delay the tanker acquisition, from what I understand the airframes are too old. And the V-22 is not under threat. It's already operational.

 

[Driller]

It will be interesting to see what does happen with the obama administration and there commitments to military funding over the comming years. Some programs can easily be cut down and some not at all. Wonder what will happen to the Army and Marines options for replacing there MBR and the marines will continue with the IAR. I always thought through recessions/depressions the military always created more jobs?

 

[rjmaz1]

You can't delay the tanker acquisition, from what I understand the airframes are too old.

There is no such thing as too old.

If the aircraft has only one third of its fatigue life used up then it is not too old.

The fact is the maintenance cost of the KC-135 in a single year is a single percentage figure of the cost of a new aircraft. If all 500 KC-135 tankers were retired tomorrow and replaced one for one with 767's then the US would be $60 billion dollars out of pocket in the short term. Thats a huge amount of money for pretty much no capability increase.

The newer 767's best case might save $10 million per aicraft per year on maintenance and running cost. So with 500 aircraft thats a $5 billion per year in saving, however spending $60 billion on the new tankers means it will take atleast 12 years until you are better off.

So instead of spending $60 billion on new tankers with money that the US doesn't have they can instead spend a few billion simply maintaining their current old fleet. Once all the major projects are safe and money is available then the purchase of new tankers can be made.

Its good to see that the tanker porgram has pretty much been frozen.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

It will be interesting to see what does happen with the obama administration and there commitments to military funding over the comming years. Some programs can easily be cut down and some not at all. Wonder what will happen to the Army and Marines options for replacing there MBR and the marines will continue with the IAR. I always thought through recessions/depressions the military always created more jobs?

I think the Army should replace its M4 with the H&K 416, the Marines should keep the M16A4 but cancel the IAR.

Though thats just too good to be true and the reality is that the Army wants to stick with the M4 and the Marines will replace some of its SAWs with the IAR but still keep around 8000 SAWs. The Army will not buy the IAR will will likely replace its SAWs with newer ones.

You can't delay the tanker acquisition, from what I understand the airframes are too old. And the V-22 is not under threat. It's already operational.

I agree they need the new tankers. And yes the V-22 is operational but the program can still be cut and production stopped and only small numbers would be operational instead of the 400 or so aircraft that the military wants and needs.

So in summary

Cancel F-22 to insure the F-35's success and domination.
Cancel DDG-1000 to improve the Navy's total ship numbers and help fund the LCS.
Delay the Tanker acquisition until well into next decade. Help fund the 2018 bomber which will reduce the need for new tankers

No they should not cancel the F-22. I think the air force needs at least 60 more for a total of 243 F-22s and they should still keep the F35 going. But the F-15 fleet is too old and the F-35 wont be in full production for a few more years and there will be a gap in production between the F-22 and the F-35 so they should keep the F-22 line going until the F-35 is 100% ready to start full production.

I agree keep the 2018 bomber but the USAF says a new tanker is one of the top priorities and I have to agree with them a new tanker is needed ASAP.

There is no such thing as too old.

If the aircraft has only one third of its fatigue life used up then it is not too old.

The current KC-135 is over 50 years old and thats way past the 1/3 mark. Some aircraft are already showing cracks and fatigue in the airframes. A new tanker is needed soon and it can't wait.

 

[rjmaz1]

No they should not cancel the F-22. I think the air force needs at least 60 more for a total of 243 F-22s and they should still keep the F35 going.

F-15 Eagle, If the F-22 and tanker programs are not stopped where do you suggest the extra money will come from to keep the other programs running at 100%?

By cutting the budget of the F-35 by 10% it will result in more than 20% reduction in numbers.

If you directly take money from the F-35 program to buy more F-22's, then vy ordering 100 additional F-22's it will reduce the number of F-35's by potentially 500 aircraft. By trying to do the right thing you end up with less capability as 500 F35's are far more valuable than 100 F-22's.

You say the F-15 fleet is too old but by ordering 100 additional F-22's you would have 400 LESS aircraft in total. That means by going with the additional F-22's you put MORE strain on the F-15 fleet not less.

We both agree that the F-22 has the best aerodynamic performance but it does not make economic sense. The true aerodynamic performance of the F-35 remains hidden from the public eye for good reason. In my opinion the USAF does not want the public knowing how good the F-35 really is as it makes the F-22 look like a huge waste of money.

Once the F-22 production shuts down the public will find out just how good the F-35 is at air dominance. Efficient is the best word to describe the F-35.

The current KC-135 is over 50 years old and thats way past the 1/3 mark. Some aircraft are already showing cracks and fatigue in the airframes. A new tanker is needed soon and it can't wait.

Nope. The average number of flight hours on the KC-135 is only 12,000hours. The airframe is certified for more than 36,000 hours. At the current high level operational tempo the KC-135 can keep flying for another 30 years before the fatigue life runs out.

For your information, all aircraft as soon as they fly start growing fatigue cracks they are just extremely small. So even though the KC-135 has fatigue cracks in the airframe they are not an issue and can still fly for many decades before they reach critical size.

Please re read my post regarding the short term cost difference between keeping the older aircraft and buying new ones. It makes no logical sense replacing the tanker fleet now if you have a short term cash flow problem such as a recession.

The USAF can easily wait 10 years until the recession ends and the war in Afghanistan is over.

 

[swerve]

The current KC-135 is over 50 years old and thats way past the 1/3 mark. Some aircraft are already showing cracks and fatigue in the airframes. A new tanker is needed soon and it can't wait.

The design is over 50 years old. The airframes mostly are not: the newest is just over 40 years old. But age is not the same as fatigue life. IT depends on how much they are used, how many take-offs & landings, how many hours in the air, etc. A short-haul airliner can do more cycles in 10 years than some of those KC-135s have done in their entire lives, a long-haul airliner can spend more hours in the air in 10 years . . . . Compared to civilian airliners, USAF tankers are lightly used.

 

[bruceedwards]

Given the total 2010 defence budget seems set to rise by 12% over the year before (to around 663 billion USD) is it likely that any projects are in danger?

Or is the financial burden of fighting two wars taking a greater financial toll on the budget than previously?

Breakdown below from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf:

Funding Highlights:
• Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent
increase over 2009.
• Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to
support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and
drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.
• Supports a transparent budget process, which simultaneously and separately requests
estimated base budget and overseas contingency operations costs.
• Expands concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for
those disabled upon retirement from active duty.
• Improves efforts to care for wounded servicemembers and to treat mental health needs.

 

[rjmaz1]

Or is the financial burden of fighting two wars taking a greater financial toll on the budget than previously?

I think it has more to do with the JSF, FCS and DDX destroyer programs being the three most expensive US military programs in the history of each of the three services.

Also I believe this years budget is the first year to include the war spending in the defence budget. So that explains the large apparent increase.

A force sitting a home training is a fraction of the cost of being deployed overseas in combat.

If the budget of all major projects were halved you'll end up with a fraction of the required numbers. When the F-22's budget blew out in the 1990's they slashed the budget in half. The result of that was 180 aircraft instead of 750. Halve the budget and get a quarter the number of fighters. It is crucial the F-22 is placed on the chopping block so that the F-35 is guranteed to be a success.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Why is it essential to slash the F22 even before the F35 isn't even operational and/or proven?

 

[Sea Toby]

The F-22 has never been approved for multi-year aircraft production by any of the six agencies used to watchdog the program. The F-22s that have been bought have been bought under Congress' annual approval, not by any approved multi-year production program.

While the CBO has not given the green light for F-35 multi-year production, several of the six watchdog agencies have. This is the first year production models of the F-35 have been bought. During previous years, test aircraft have been purchased. While Lockheed has fallen behind a bit on testing, it expects to catch up when more test aircraft are built. And while testing is not completed, there are no anticipated problems expected.

The bird is passing its testing program with ease, so far. The main reason the testing program is behind is the fact that Lockheed has fallen behind on production. Can't test without aircraft. And why has Lockheed fallen behind in production, its suppliers have fallen behind. Its another dog chasing its tail again.

 

[rjmaz1]

Why is it essential to slash the F22 even before the F35 isn't even operational and/or proven?

Because every F-22 you order you are robbing two F-35's from service. For every F-22 bought you are reducing the total number of fighters in the USAF. The F-22 is the only project listed in this thread that has another program that can perform most of its role.

This is like saying that you cant order any more Bugatti Veyrons and have to settle for Ferrari's.. Someone always going to be upset but when the competition are driving toyota camry's, who the hell cares?

The other programs if canceled has no such fallback. You'd be forced to buy older existing systems that ared a whole generation behind.

I dont see why so many people on various forums around the world are infatuated with the F-22. There is more to the military than an overpriced air dominance fighter. By the time a threat nation has a comparable 5th genration aircraft in service, the US will be flight testing its 6th generation aircraft.

 

[OPSSG]

The F-22 has never been approved for multi-year aircraft production by any of the six agencies used to watchdog the program. The F-22s that have been bought have been bought under Congress' annual approval, not by any approved multi-year production program.

How similar is the F-22 funding method to the funding obtained to build the 21 B-2s twenty years ago (which was the source of another GAO concern at that time)? I'm a little confused and would appreciate any enlightenment by Sea Toby, rjmaz1 or the Mods. The FAS has more B-2 program details here.

BTW, I've been observing threads on the JSF program and the FCS program, both of whom I hope will succeed. IMHO, at this stage, the JSF program is a sure bet, but I'm not sure about continued funding for the FCS program. Even if part of the FCS program succeeds, it would change in the way the US army fights.

 

[Feanor]

The design is over 50 years old. The airframes mostly are not: the newest is just over 40 years old. But age is not the same as fatigue life. IT depends on how much they are used, how many take-offs & landings, how many hours in the air, etc. A short-haul airliner can do more cycles in 10 years than some of those KC-135s have done in their entire lives, a long-haul airliner can spend more hours in the air in 10 years . . . . Compared to civilian airliners, USAF tankers are lightly used.

Then why replace them at all?

 

[IPA35]

Exports ould save the F-22.
I bet there are some interested nations.

(Japan especialy)

 

[F-15 Eagle]

F-15 Eagle, If the F-22 and tanker programs are not stopped where do you suggest the extra money will come from to keep the other programs running at 100%?

By cutting the budget of the F-35 by 10% it will result in more than 20% reduction in numbers.

If you directly take money from the F-35 program to buy more F-22's, then vy ordering 100 additional F-22's it will reduce the number of F-35's by potentially 500 aircraft. By trying to do the right thing you end up with less capability as 500 F35's are far more valuable than 100 F-22's.

You say the F-15 fleet is too old but by ordering 100 additional F-22's you would have 400 LESS aircraft in total. That means by going with the additional F-22's you put MORE strain on the F-15 fleet not less.

We both agree that the F-22 has the best aerodynamic performance but it does not make economic sense. The true aerodynamic performance of the F-35 remains hidden from the public eye for good reason. In my opinion the USAF does not want the public knowing how good the F-35 really is as it makes the F-22 look like a huge waste of money.

Once the F-22 production shuts down the public will find out just how good the F-35 is at air dominance. Efficient is the best word to describe the F-35.



The USAF can easily wait 10 years until the recession ends and the war in Afghanistan is over.

Well for one I think the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many many years to come, the war will not end anytime soon. I don't know how long this recession will last but I hope it will be over in a year or so.

And I was not saying cut the F-35, that would be a stupid move to cut the F-35. What I'm saying is increase the budget some more to provide funds for 60 additional F-22s and all 2458 F-35s.

I think they should continue buying F-22s for at least 3 more years is because that way they don't have to lay off 100,000 workers at LM in this time of recession. Once the F-35 is ready for full production and its been proven for air superiority than they can transition from the F-22 to the F-35 with very little disturbance in the work force.

I agree the F-35 will be a great air dominance fighter, better than the F-15, Su-30/35 etc...but 183 F-22s is not enough and I think with some more F-22s it can preserve jobs and help the USAF retire at least some of its 35 year old F-15s in a couple years.

 

[eckherl]

Well for one I think the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for many many years to come, the war will not end anytime soon. I don't know how long this recession will last but I hope it will be over in a year or so.

And I was not saying cut the F-35, that would be a stupid move to cut the F-35. What I'm saying is increase the budget some more to provide funds for 60 additional F-22s and all 2458 F-35s.

I think they should continue buying F-22s for at least 3 more years is because that way they don't have to lay off 100,000 workers at LM in this time of recession. Once the F-35 is ready for full production and its been proven for air superiority than they can transition from the F-22 to the F-35 with very little disturbance in the work force.

I agree the F-35 will be a great air dominance fighter, better than the F-15, Su-30/35 etc...but 183 F-22s is not enough and I think with some more F-22s it can preserve jobs and help the USAF retire at least some of its 35 year old F-15s in a couple years.

Do not write future F-22 purchases off just yet, I still believe that we are going to get additional planes and Japan will get it.

 

[metalkat 77]

Crisis Time

Well in some way yes it is a situation to get in panic, but let see in this point, the economical crisis probally are demanding this cuts, and focus thew resources in open a new kind of job oportunities it feel like a :nutkick but in the last timne military have been consume a lot resources it is time Obama destinate this resources where the people really need it and well yea a dellay for a year will be healthhie

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Do not write future F-22 purchases off just yet, I still believe that we are going to get additional planes and Japan will get it.

I sure you your right my friend.