Comments on: Thoughts on the 2010 Top Line

By: Nomexjock

Nomexjock — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:22:52 +0000

Just noticed the advertisement for the BAE “Valanx,” sure to be part of the bid for light armored vehicles. It is hard to recommend BAE for anything after their recent record of bribes, criminal action, and providing whores for Saudis:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld

By: ak

ak — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:30:10 +0000

Seems a pretty good compromise. The Pres. helo program was ridiculous, FCS needed a kick in the pants. Never quite understood the ddg1000. Aren’t these ‘boats’ really all about the systems they contain? Big proven DDG-51s with the latest hardware are surely enough.
Not convinced on the f-22 however. Don’t forget, this decision will shape the US AF many decades from now. Sure upgraded f-16 & f-15 are still capable aircraft. Same in 2030? 2040? What is the path of the Chinese AF?

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:31:05 +0000

Just a few points. 1) There are a lot of crazy people here. Obama isn't a traitor, he just doesn't agree with you on (many many) issues. That's okay, because I don't think I'd agree with you either. 2) Yes, we should learn from Russia. We should learn to not do things like fuggin' Russia does. That's like a rich man driving down the road in his Mercedes, looking out at the homeless guy on the street, and saying "Hey, he doesn't have to worry about the stock market. I should learn from him." 3) We need a balance between having enough stuff and having the best stuff. We need to have the best in case we go to war against another nation, to guarantee victory. And we need enough stuff to last. We need stuff not just to win the war, but to secure the peace, without breaking the bank. Whether Gates' plan is the appropriate balance, we'll never agree. But a balance must be struck. To me, the F-22 is proven and it works. Its cost is finally in line with other top tier fighters. Quitting on it now is like buying a girl a bunch of drinks and then stopping just as she's starting to take off her bra. The DDX is a waste. As vast a chasm as exists between our air capability and an opponent's, an even greater one exists between our naval might and an opponent's. The DDX is a technology demonstrator, and its cost has ballooned to make its labor-saving technologies no longer economical. I think it's time to pull the plug on that experiment and use lessons learned on future designs. As cool as a nuclear powered railgun would be, that's still a ways from deployment. FCS is in the same boat. The NLOS cannon is the only one that actually works. Let's cut our losses and build the one, but let's not pretend that any of the other vehicles were anywhere near complete. Let's cancel it and begin work on real replacement vehicles for the Abrams and the Bradley. Missile defense can and does work. To pretend that it can never be successful is to bury your head in the sand. Now, that doesn't mean that there's any pressing need for it right now. But let's continue development of things like the ABL and continue research and tests on missile interceptors. Russia obviously has concerns that missile defense is a threat to them, otherwise they wouldn't have their panties in such a wad over it.

By: ZZX

ZZX — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:40:59 +0000

LCS is a piece of crap. Instead, why not making some cheap a$$ thing like some WWII-style destroyer (like the Fletcher) with modern technology? It should be massively cheap and dozens could be built. Or just buy a foreign design like the Visby corvette and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
I just hate to see how simple programs go severely overbudget, the American military industrial complex should learn some lessons from Russia (more from old USSR though) in certain aspects. Overdesigning, overbudgeting, overcomplex, overeverything. Not to say that we are falling in some of the same errors of Nazi Germany: why re-designing a very proven, simple, cheap and excellent tank like the T-34 and turning it into some expensive, complex, unproven and unreliable machine like the early Panthers? Some things need to be simple and cheap: the president helo, the tanker or the LCS are clear examples of simple projects gone mad. I think there are other projects like the F22 or the carriers that deserve more right to be complex and overbudget, as they are gamechangers and there are no alternatives to them

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:41:04 +0000

The FCS program was critcised from day one but it fundamental aim was to streamline the Army to operate with less units/soldiers & for at a lower cost, something that would be kindof useful during these times huh?!
It makes economic sense to use vehicles less then 20 ton than a Bradley or Abrams that have expensive logistical upkeeps + are gas guzzlers.
Not only that but with enrollments into the army set to decline even further, an offensive force armed with vehicles that are designed to operate with less men or unmanned is kindof benificial, no?
Not only that it produced force multipliers + game changers in the NLOS-LS system. Not only for defence/holding the high ground (burried int he ground thanks to bull dozers; extremely hard to find with satelites or over the horizon radar) but also as a extremely cheap replacement for the aircraft carrier. Meaning, using the Netfires as floating buoys in the ocean as a barracade to a country, dropped/inserted by whatever, (Transport planes, B52, Hell even pushed off the side of a coast guard ship). These self contained missiles in a box then effectively blockade a nation for hostile forces leaving a country but can also strike on land inside their nation, maybe the missiles could be modified for anti air aswell.
loosing an NLOS LS means nothing, loosing an aircraft carrier is a shock to national prestige not to mention a loss of billions of dollars, theres only 12 too. Do the math a blockade of 100 NLOS LS buoys which are dispensible or one Aircraft carrier to do the same thing, one is Extremely cheaper.
Why would such a program be cut that is a representation of the economic times we are in. Seems the programs fault was being ahead of its times.

By: ewok40k

ewok40k — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:23:53 +0000

re: F-22
Russia has 300 mig-29s of which one third was just grounded,su-27s are probably in the same situation. Nuff’ said.
Anyway, retiring 250 fighters to buy 30 is way to destroy air force. Re-open F-16/F-18 production if can’t afford F-35 @ 50/year at least.
re: presidential helo
costliest helo per piece, ever! S-70 derivative for Mr.Obama is enough.
re: LCS and DDGs:
LCS is crap, and so is Zumwalt. More Burkes makes sense, but cheap, off-the shelf frigate of MEKO standard would be best. And SLEP the Perrys!

By: Juancho

Juancho — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:36:00 +0000

Carrier build rate reduced to 1 every 5 years. This means we will have 10 carriers by 2040.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:40:10 +0000

It seems that one recurring theme in these threads, that occurs far too often , is that someone will advocate some magic bullet, like increased use of cruise missiles, instead of buying this or that weapon system. Such advocacy clearly indicates 1) A complete lack of knowledge of magic bullet costs and 2) an almost child-like faith in their effectiveness-unsupported by experience.
Good Night all

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 04:30:31 +0000

SecDef Gates is just leveraging his role as the Administration’s token outsider to accomplish pretty much what he wanted to do anyway. Its an Win-Win for Team Obama and Gates. They get to ptretend to care about defense (a la Clinton and Cohen), and he gets to have the last word against those in the earlier administration who modulated his poorer instincts.
The only really large disappointment I found was is the punt on Long Range Strike, and the rationale offered: so pathetic and sad.

By: Drake

Drake — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 03:26:39 +0000

Hopefully lawmakers will take this recommendation as an oppurtunity to push for new legacy aircraft to bridge the fighter gap.