Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fate of the F-22 in Obama’s Hands

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    This whole job's lost excuse seems to be a non-starter:


    LM exec: Few, if any, jobs lost if F-22 line closes
    By Stephen Trimble

    Question: How many jobs will Lockheed Martin cut if the F-22 production closes this year?

    Answer: Probably none. Maybe a few.

    That's not my opinion. That's what Ralph Heath, president of Lockheed's aeronautics division, said as recently as November 20. Heath spoke to market analysts at the Credit Suisse Group Aerospace & Defense Conference in New York. Asked whether F-22 assets could be redeployed to support the F-35 ramp-up, here's what Heath said:

    It's -- the production folks that probably will become displaced when we're at the end of the production line in Marietta, because we've had the good fortune or we were reaping the dividends of the hard work that we've put in place with the C-130, we actually have a requirement for ramping up for C-130 production. So, those folks can be redeployed there.

    In a similar vein for C-5, about a year from now we'll be marching in the ramp-up for full production on the re-engining program and we'll have a need for employees there as well.

    A third of the F-22 is built in Fort Worth. And again, as we ramp up for F-35, we have the need already for deploying the manufacturing people there as well.

    So, if you go back to the portfolio balance, it's not exactly perfect but we're probably as good as we've ever been and where you'd want to be in terms of the balance and different points with the lifecycle of the portfolio of programs that we have.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...bs-lost-i.html

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      The people saying that have no idea how the US DoD works. Navy money saved will not be used to buy Air Force planes.

      There are various discussions on reducing the CVs but none of them mention buying more USAF planes with the savings.
      You are talking from a position where funds are already allocated. In such a case yes, Navy funds can not be transfered to AF. But if one is talking about overall budget savings then yes, budget savings from Navy or anywhere else for that matter, can allow extra spending in other areas, in this case Raptors in the AF.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by beez26 View Post
        I dont think Obama will ax the f-22 cut the numbers yes but not totally eliminate future purchases. The US wouldnt need the f-22 for Iran,Sudan and north korea the cuurent fleet we have would be enough. But we do need it as a deterant for China and Russia so I am in favor of keeping it active. Just was woundering if the Airforce would ever consider buying F-18 Superhornets to replace older F-15's I have read in a few places that the superhornet is just as capable as the F-15C's we currently have?
        Eagles usually beat Shornets. Not always, but usually. So if we can handle Iran right now, what are we going to do in 15 years if we're forced to go to war then? Iran will likely have SA-10s, maybe SA-20s, and they'll probably have newer aircraft than their current F-4, F-5, and old MiG-29 fleet.

        You dont limit yourself and only plan to fight a war today, you plan for the NEXT war. That means F-22s and new destroyers for the Navy.

        Originally posted by Zinja View Post
        You are talking from a position where funds are already allocated. In such a case yes, Navy funds can not be transfered to AF. But if one is talking about overall budget savings then yes, budget savings from Navy or anywhere else for that matter, can allow extra spending in other areas, in this case Raptors in the AF.
        That will not happen. I'd put a paycheck on it. Any savings from the Navy and Air Force are funneled directly to the Army. Congress actually took money from the AF's payroll system to give the Army a boost of cash at one point.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
          That will not happen. I'd put a paycheck on it. Any savings from the Navy and Air Force are funneled directly to the Army. Congress actually took money from the AF's payroll system to give the Army a boost of cash at one point.
          So AF can be symphoned to cussion the army but by NO MEANS can the AF be cussioned by anybody at any time whatsoever? Is that how it works? Is there a statutory instrument to that effect? I doubt it.

          The very fact of the incident you have raised (if its true. Not that i don't believe you, just that i hadn't heard of it) shows that it is possible to move funds around the military's different wings, which by the way was NOT my point.

          My point was if overal costs can be reduced in the overal military budget by reducing costs in the Navy, it would allow the military to spent more elsewhere, in this case buy raptors for the AF. I was responding to Gun Grape who seemed to say i was implying that ALLOCATED Navy funds can be transfered to the AF.

          Comment


          • #65
            KenMac, you are talking about LM jobs, a company which is not in the list of struggling companies at all. There are 95,000 jobs related to the F-22 nationwide and by and large, a huge bulk of them is not with LM. Those are the jobs that are in jeopardy.

            A third of the F-22 is built in Fort Worth. And again, as we ramp up for F-35, we have the need already for deploying the manufacturing people there as well.
            That was one of my points when i was argueing for possible batch of more raptors. My point was that if LM logic is to transfer this workforce to the F-35 program when the F-35 is ramped up, the question is when will that time be? Estimates say about 2013-2014, which is just about a time period that can be pluged by another batch of raptors, ie if the workforce is to be retained for 2013-14.
            Last edited by Zinja; 04 Feb 09,, 15:16.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Zinja View Post
              So AF can be symphoned to cussion the army but by NO MEANS can the AF be cussioned by anybody at any time whatsoever? Is that how it works? Is there a statutory instrument to that effect? I doubt it.

              The very fact of the incident you have raised (if its true. Not that i don't believe you, just that i hadn't heard of it) shows that it is possible to move funds around the military's different wings, which by the way was NOT my point.

              My point was if overal costs can be reduced in the overal military budget by reducing costs in the Navy, it would allow the military to spent more elsewhere, in this case buy raptors for the AF. I was responding to Gun Grape who seemed to say i was implying that ALLOCATED Navy funds can be transfered to the AF.
              Of course there's no law about it. But we're talking about the DOD under Sec Gates here. He has his priorities, and Congress was stalling on passing a budget. It was a huge issue in the Military Times, but internal military woes dont make for exciting stories in the civilian media. They dont print/show anything unless someone dies.

              As far as the AF being the beneficiary...its NOT going to happen. There's a ground war going on. That's where the money would go. The #1 question that's asked when there's a budgetary request is, "How will this help OEF/OIF?" If you dont have a good answer, you DONT GET MONEY. That's just how it is. Sad and horrible, but true.

              The Air Force has been on the chopping block for years. Look at personnel numbers. The AF is roughly half the size it was 12 years ago. Yet our deployments and continency operations have increased. To meet the numbers set forth by Congress, they didn't just slow recruiting efforts. They actively removed people...if you got picked, you were discharged and sent home. AF leadership held the position that the cuts were too deep, but nobody listened. Until finally, it happened: the AF could not support ground operations due to personnel and equipment shortfalls. Personnel cuts were halted almost a year early.

              There's not much help coming for the AF or Navy. They're in the same situation as us...loaded with old equipment that's expensive to maintain but can't be replaced without lots of money, which isn't coming.
              Last edited by Jimmy; 04 Feb 09,, 19:45.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                Another thing (maybe not completely related to this particular topic) is there is talk of reducing the number of US carriers. The argument is that the large fleet was a result of the cold war which is now not necessary( so they say). However, that would potentially reduce the US's ability to respond to current flash points and therefore these proponents argue that allies should be given more responsibility to look after themselves and relieve the US of the burden which demands such a large fleet of carriers. The arguement goes on to say if the next two carriers due for refueling are instead decommissioned, the savings would effectively solve the problem of funding the next fleet of 60 or so raptors. Or alternatively, they argue that the current development period of a carrier be increased from 6 years to 8 years for the next Ford class carriers, that too would make savings enough for more raptors. Either way, both propositions argue for a reduced number of carriers.
                Sir, only 1/3rd of the fleet is actually ready to go at any time. So at twelve in inventory you're already down to two carriers per hemisphere in real terms, and you can't deploy them all wherever because you need some of them in position to be able to counter known threats. Unless there's some major changes that allow for more of the force to be up at any given time, the Navy is already hurting very badly for what it's called to do, and arbitrarily demanding we run the ships harder doesn't help matters. WW2 especially showed if you try that the carrier will shortly be good for nothing but scrap. The first carrier Enterprise met its fate in a scrapyard instead of being turned into a museum for a reason.

                Besides which the entire premise is inherently absurd. You want to trade guranteed ability to deploy aircraft anywhere and guard those ships carrying your gear and supplies for more stuff that all to often is out of position and has to be shipped? One single Container ship > entire AF cargo fleet and military ops require too much tonnage even with prepositioning ships for sea control to not be of vital importance.

                The AF has its job and it does it well enough, but the Navy is something neglecting is the height of insanity for a country like the US. You do that you might as well write off ever leaving home, or not getting shafted by pirates messing with trade lane traffic vital to your economy.
                Last edited by FOG3; 05 Feb 09,, 03:54.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Zinja View Post

                  My point was if overal costs can be reduced in the overal military budget by reducing costs in the Navy, it would allow the military to spent more elsewhere, in this case buy raptors for the AF. I was responding to Gun Grape who seemed to say i was implying that ALLOCATED Navy funds can be transfered to the AF.
                  Didn't care if you were implying allocated or not. Thats not the way DoD works.

                  You seem to think that they are one big happy family but its actually 4 separate kingdoms. Would be fought tooth and nail, within DOD and Congress. Never happen. Especially a high profile example like you gave.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    Carlo Kopp= Australia's answer to Mike Sparks:))
                    While I'm hardly an air-power expert, everything I've read from Carlo Kopp has given me the impression he's amongst a clique of die-hard fantasists who cling to the delusion of Australia being some sort of bastion of ''White civilization'' that's destined to fight some great race war against the barbarians from the north. I wouldn't care what he had to say if he'd only stop attempting to meddle in issues of National Defence.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      You have barbarians to the north too?
                      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        You have barbarians to the north too?
                        Not as bad as ours...

                        ==========

                        Catch F-22 for Obama
                        A cut in weapons like the F-22 jet fighter will also cut jobs. But that's not really the point.
                        By the Monitor's Editorial Board

                        from the March 4, 2009 edition
                        http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0304/p08s01-comv.html

                        The most advanced warplane in history, the F-22 Raptor, is on Barack Obama's chopping block. Yet the president faces a no-win situation. If somehow he gets Congress to stop paying for more of the stealthy jets – whose full cost is $354 million a plane – thousands of defense workers will quickly lose their jobs in a recession.

                        As a Democrat more interested in spending money on butter than guns, Mr. Obama does not see guns as butter. His priorities are healthcare, energy, and education. Some Democrats even want a 25 percent cut in defense spending.

                        But Obama may not win the coming political dogfight with Congress over reducing production of the F-22, which the Air Force sees as its crown jewel in commanding the skies in a conflict. The plane is manufactured by some 1,000 companies in 44 states. That's created a powerful lobby.

                        But this debate should go beyond the question of where and whether government should create jobs. The military's whole future is wrapped up in the F-22 question and shouldn't be hijacked by short-term interests.

                        Originally designed to fight Soviet jets, the F-22 is seen by its critics as a relic of a bygone era. Or as Obama put it, the US should not keep "paying for cold war-era weapons systems we don't use."

                        Not so fast, say F-22 defenders. Yes, the military's tasks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are not traditional warfare and do reflect a new era of nonstate fighters. But how will the US win a war with, say, China over Taiwan, or with Russia if it again invades a neighbor like Georgia? Who's to say what war might look like in 20 years? And some weapons, like the F-22, may do their job simply by deterrence rather than actual use.

                        Obama's proposed spending for the Pentagon won't be public until April, when he delivers a full budget to Capitol Hill. But his preliminary budget issued last month warns of "scarce resources" for defense. In inflation-adjusted dollars, he wants only a 2 percent increase for the Pentagon, much less than his overall budget increase.

                        High-priced weapons, often burdened with cost overruns and technical problems, will receive serious scrutiny. Their usefulness will be weighed against a coming Defense Review that will reflect Obama's ideas on security and potential threats.

                        Those ideas include using "soft power" to resolve possible conflicts, such as with Iran. (The US has more members of military bands than it does diplomats.) Obama is asking allies to spend more on defense. He may put more money into building up faltering states that may harbor terrorists than, say, the US Navy.

                        Obama appears to want military spending to fall as a percentage of the economy, perhaps down from 4.2 percent to 3 percent, even as he expands the number of troops.

                        Such shifts would redefine the US as a superpower. "The categories of warfare are blurring and no longer fit into neat, tidy boxes," Defense Secretary Roberts Gates wrote in a January article. He says "the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing."

                        Congress will need to look beyond the issue of jobs and recession if it is to properly judge Obama's military agenda with the perspective of safeguarding the US – and the world – for an unknown future with unknown enemies.
                        To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}- View Post
                          While I'm hardly an air-power expert, everything I've read from Carlo Kopp has given me the impression he's amongst a clique of die-hard fantasists who cling to the delusion of Australia being some sort of bastion of ''White civilization'' that's destined to fight some great race war against the barbarians from the north. I wouldn't care what he had to say if he'd only stop attempting to meddle in issues of National Defence.
                          Would agree, the man is a basket case. He has this obsession about the F22 and how everything else is inferior in every sense and that if we dont get it we will get overun by fleets of Indian, Chinese and Indonesian Backfires escorted by Super Flankers wielding 1000km hypersonic missiles.

                          Hes Aussies equivelant to that nutjob roaming the net going on about the Gavin :))
                          The best part of repentance is the sin

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Is Carlo Kopp the same guy who has a hard on for the F-111?
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              yeah, the one and only
                              “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by highsea View Post
                                You have barbarians to the north too?

                                Yeah, they're called Queenslanders.
                                Last edited by Bigfella; 04 Mar 09,, 00:38.
                                sigpic

                                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X