As I type, I am watching a live broadcast of SecDef Gates presenting the new FY2010 Defence Budget. Be on the lookout for news reports with the details. There are lots of shocks for everyone!
Ron
New Defence Budget Recommendations
-
ronniegj
First news release that I've found.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_ ... nse_budget
Ron
Edit: BTW, this article barely touches the extent of this budget. I'll let you search out more extensive articles for yourself. rj
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_ ... nse_budget
Ron
Edit: BTW, this article barely touches the extent of this budget. I'll let you search out more extensive articles for yourself. rj
As much as I'd like to see hundreds upon hundreds of Raptors filling the skies, times have changed and we have difficult decisions to make as a nation. Losing jobs is never good and I hope that a balance can be struck between ending programs and preserving jobs.
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Looks like the F22 has had it
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -programs/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -programs/
-
Jumpshot724
- Major
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 16 Feb 2008, 20:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: New York, USA
Exactly. As sad as it may be, we have to face it that the Raptor was designed for a Cold War scenario....and last I heard the most recent one ended almost 20 years ago. Maybe it's time to cut the lineAs much as I'd like to see hundreds upon hundreds of Raptors filling the skies, times have changed and we have difficult decisions to make as a nation. Losing jobs is never good and I hope that a balance can be struck between ending programs and preserving jobs.
-Joe W.
"I love the smell of jetfuel in the morning....smells like VICTORY!!"
"I love the smell of jetfuel in the morning....smells like VICTORY!!"
I just read somewhere else that many of the Guard's F-16s and certainly their F-15s are nearing the end of their useful lives. What are they going to fly in the meantime until the 5th gen fighters get handed down?
If we were smart, we would open up a new A-10 line. Don't change the basic design, just incorporate all the upgrades and produce new C models. But knowing the AF, this would turn into an over budget Charlie Foxtrot pretty quickly.
If we were smart, we would open up a new A-10 line. Don't change the basic design, just incorporate all the upgrades and produce new C models. But knowing the AF, this would turn into an over budget Charlie Foxtrot pretty quickly.
-Mike G.
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
Recovering flight sim addict, constant lurker.
Check out my real life RV-8 build here: RV-8 Builder Log
-
ronniegj
SecDef indicated that a large percentage of the older airframes (I assume F-15/6 and A-10) would be retired in the next two years. F-35's would number greater than 2000 by 2015 (beginning in 2010, that's 200 plus per year)and the F-35 will be the do it all aircraft, no more orders for C-17 from the US Military, beginning now, and a fleet of 10 carriers by 2055, all new design, so I am assuming that G.W. Bush will be retired in 2055, and all prior carriers long before that. Large recruitment of new pilots and aircrew for Army rotorwing, no new airframes. No new AF transport development for now. KC-X will be put out for new bid later this year, no comment on numbers for now. No new bomber program (I guess B52 will fly until the wings drop off). Navy, maybe, will get some new destroyers, but maybe not. Litoral ships will increase (I think I heard 55, but not sure). Army will have 45 divisions, but with larger numbers per division. No development for future battlefield, all money will be directed to the here and now. No continuing development of boost stage anti-missile for now, three refurbished Aegis for mid flight anti-missile and land based terminal phase anti-missile will be funded. The laser firing 747 will be retained for tests, but second one will not be completed. There was something about Naval ships for the Marines, but can't remember if it was no more, a few more or whatever. Don't think I liked what I heard, but will have to wait and see the written reports.
All of this will have to survive a trip to the hill, and lots of congressmen will surely cry out "not my state" and so this could be all total BS.
Some of this is maybe good, some really bad, and some so-so.
Ron
All of this will have to survive a trip to the hill, and lots of congressmen will surely cry out "not my state" and so this could be all total BS.
Some of this is maybe good, some really bad, and some so-so.
Ron
-
Victory103
- Colonel
- Posts: 3979
- Joined: 13 Aug 2007, 03:35
- Version: P3D
- Location: KPHX
-
Ford Friendly
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 823
- Joined: 08 Jul 2007, 22:15
- Version: FS9
-
BadPvtDan
- MAIW Staff
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 21:14
- Version: FSX
- Location: Round Rock, TX
- Contact:
They would call me back if they needed to fill 45 divisions.
About jobs....the marketplace creates jobs...not government. I'm not sure how cutting the Raptor line will save jobs. That being said...those things are expensive!
About jobs....the marketplace creates jobs...not government. I'm not sure how cutting the Raptor line will save jobs. That being said...those things are expensive!
"The first rule of Zombieland: Cardio. When the zombie outbreak first hit, the first to go, for obvious reasons... were the fatties."
-
ronniegj
Sorry, you are correct, and it was very late when I typed that.
Re: C-27 et al. Gen Cartwright mentioned during the presentation an increased allocation of specialized air assets for special ops, specifically 2 types of fixed wing aircraft, which I'm guessing means the C-27 and that smaller Stol transport that had been recently been reported on that is manufactured in Poland. He and SecDef made it clear that spec ops will grow.
Ron
PS: Also mentioned was a large increase in the number of Reapers (media has reported Predators, but I heard Reapers!).
Re: C-27 et al. Gen Cartwright mentioned during the presentation an increased allocation of specialized air assets for special ops, specifically 2 types of fixed wing aircraft, which I'm guessing means the C-27 and that smaller Stol transport that had been recently been reported on that is manufactured in Poland. He and SecDef made it clear that spec ops will grow.
Ron
PS: Also mentioned was a large increase in the number of Reapers (media has reported Predators, but I heard Reapers!).
-
ronniegj
Well, I thought I heard SecDef say Reapers, but the printed release of the statement does not support that, however, it looks as though it was Gen Cartwright who specified Reapers. See this report:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense
Future U.S. Fighter Force to Include UAVs
Apr 7, 2009
Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the current Pentagon tactical aircraft force structure "is significantly [in] excess to the requirement," a factor leading to decision to retire 250 of the oldest legacy fighters in its fleet in Fiscal 2010 and halt F-22 production at 187 aircraft.
This force structure plan was proposed by the U.S. Air Force, Gates says. Yet recently, Gen. Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, told reporters as many as 60 more F-22s could be required. That position changed in the course of Gates' recent review of defense programs.
The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, says the new tactical aircraft force structure will be a high-medium-low mix of F-22s, F-35s and, perhaps, a surprise to some in the defense industry: the USAF's Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. Both officials made their comments April 7 during a roundtable with trade reporters at the Pentagon.
As part of his alterations in defense spending, Gates announced April 6 that 250 aging USAF fighters would be retired in next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. Many of those will be F-16s and A-10s, according to defense and industry sources.
They will be replaced partly with General Atomics Reapers, Cartwright said. "Heretofore, they were not included in the analytic side of the mission space that the F-16, F-15 and F-15E were occupying," he explains. "Given the conflicts we are in and are likely to be in the next couple of years are conflicts in which being on station for a long period of time and not delivering maximum loads every sortie - those platforms do, in fact, give you a qualitative edge."
If so, the continued production of new F-35s - made by Lockheed Martin in Ft. Worth, Texas - and new Reapers will shape the near-term industrial base workload for tactical aircraft, since Gates has sidelined acquisition of a new bomber pending results of a Nuclear Posture Review this year. Boeing's St. Louis facility, which builds the F/A-18E/F, E/A-18G and F-15 families, can expect 31 new Super Hornets bought by the Pentagon if Gates' plan is approved by Congress.
Some in industry take this as a nod for what could be the first year of a forthcoming multiyear acquisition of F-18s for the Navy, which along with the Marines has declared a future fighter gap in force planning.
Buying in quantity - for example with the F-35 or the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship - is part of a strategy to provide stability for the industrial base, Gates and Cartwright say.
Part of what makes the force structure's top-line possible is the force mix of F-22s and F-35s, Cartwright adds.
"They don't do the same thing, but the pairing of the F-35 and the F-22 gives you something significantly better than the pairing of the F-22 and the F/A-18, F-16 or F-15. And so if we can get numbers in one - a niche capability that the F-22 brings - and the F-35ýýýthe modeling tells us that the against the threats that we believe we have today and the threats that we believe will emerge in the future, then that mix - numbers in the F-35 and the qualitative edge in certain areas of the F-22 - that was the mix that came out."
Meanwhile, to shore up the F-35 program, the vice chairman says the Pentagon plans to buy more test assets to allow additional simultaneous testing of air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities and to avoid the possibility that a snag in one area could create a logjam for the test program. He did not say how many additional test assets the F-35 is expected to buy in Fiscal 2010.
Ron
PS: All of my previous statements were, I hope it was clear, based upon my memory of the statement, and not intended to be 100 percent accurate, just the best that I could remember, and was intended to get you to look up the text for yourself, and of course to stimulate discussion on the subject.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense
Future U.S. Fighter Force to Include UAVs
Apr 7, 2009
Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the current Pentagon tactical aircraft force structure "is significantly [in] excess to the requirement," a factor leading to decision to retire 250 of the oldest legacy fighters in its fleet in Fiscal 2010 and halt F-22 production at 187 aircraft.
This force structure plan was proposed by the U.S. Air Force, Gates says. Yet recently, Gen. Norton Schwartz, USAF chief of staff, told reporters as many as 60 more F-22s could be required. That position changed in the course of Gates' recent review of defense programs.
The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, says the new tactical aircraft force structure will be a high-medium-low mix of F-22s, F-35s and, perhaps, a surprise to some in the defense industry: the USAF's Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle. Both officials made their comments April 7 during a roundtable with trade reporters at the Pentagon.
As part of his alterations in defense spending, Gates announced April 6 that 250 aging USAF fighters would be retired in next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. Many of those will be F-16s and A-10s, according to defense and industry sources.
They will be replaced partly with General Atomics Reapers, Cartwright said. "Heretofore, they were not included in the analytic side of the mission space that the F-16, F-15 and F-15E were occupying," he explains. "Given the conflicts we are in and are likely to be in the next couple of years are conflicts in which being on station for a long period of time and not delivering maximum loads every sortie - those platforms do, in fact, give you a qualitative edge."
If so, the continued production of new F-35s - made by Lockheed Martin in Ft. Worth, Texas - and new Reapers will shape the near-term industrial base workload for tactical aircraft, since Gates has sidelined acquisition of a new bomber pending results of a Nuclear Posture Review this year. Boeing's St. Louis facility, which builds the F/A-18E/F, E/A-18G and F-15 families, can expect 31 new Super Hornets bought by the Pentagon if Gates' plan is approved by Congress.
Some in industry take this as a nod for what could be the first year of a forthcoming multiyear acquisition of F-18s for the Navy, which along with the Marines has declared a future fighter gap in force planning.
Buying in quantity - for example with the F-35 or the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship - is part of a strategy to provide stability for the industrial base, Gates and Cartwright say.
Part of what makes the force structure's top-line possible is the force mix of F-22s and F-35s, Cartwright adds.
"They don't do the same thing, but the pairing of the F-35 and the F-22 gives you something significantly better than the pairing of the F-22 and the F/A-18, F-16 or F-15. And so if we can get numbers in one - a niche capability that the F-22 brings - and the F-35ýýýthe modeling tells us that the against the threats that we believe we have today and the threats that we believe will emerge in the future, then that mix - numbers in the F-35 and the qualitative edge in certain areas of the F-22 - that was the mix that came out."
Meanwhile, to shore up the F-35 program, the vice chairman says the Pentagon plans to buy more test assets to allow additional simultaneous testing of air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities and to avoid the possibility that a snag in one area could create a logjam for the test program. He did not say how many additional test assets the F-35 is expected to buy in Fiscal 2010.
Ron
PS: All of my previous statements were, I hope it was clear, based upon my memory of the statement, and not intended to be 100 percent accurate, just the best that I could remember, and was intended to get you to look up the text for yourself, and of course to stimulate discussion on the subject.
-
ronniegj
Spent the day watching live broadcasts of the various branches briefing of their individual budget request.
Earlier I had found this re: the C-27
http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 8W20090507
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Defense will ask Congress to cut in half a $2 billion joint Air Force-Army plan to acquire L-3 Communications Holdings Inc cargo planes, a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters shows.
Instead of as many as 78 C-27J Spartan aircraft, the department will seek to buy 38 -- 13 currently on order plus 25 in fiscal 2010 to 2012, according to the document titled "Resource Management Decision No. 802."
In addition, the Army would transfer the program, known as the Joint Cargo Aircraft, and the direct support airlift mission it involves to the Air Force, the decision memorandum says.
In a May 1-dated letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, 13 members of the House of Representatives voiced opposition to earlier reports of the plan.
"We believe that, if implemented, such cuts would impede the ability of the United States Army, specifically the Army National Guard, to meet intra-theater lift requirements ... as well as severely constrain the Army and Air National Guard's ability to respond to a domestic disaster," the lawmakers wrote.
The aircraft is designed to meet the tactical needs of ground commanders, sometimes referred to as transporting cargo the "last tactical mile," as well as for homeland security emergency missions, including ferrying hurricane supplies.
Lance Martin, a spokesman for L-3, the program's prime contractor, did not immediately return a phone call seeking a comment. The airframe is being supplied by Alenia North America Inc, a unit of Italy's Finmeccanica SpA, under a Pentagon contract awarded in 2007.
The program reduction is expected to be announced later Thursday as part of President Barack Obama's detailed spending plan for fiscal 2010, which starts October 1.
It would add to the list of arms programs targeted for cuts by Gates, who is seeking to shift more resources to deal with wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Reporting by Jim Wolf, Editing by Maureen Bavdek)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
However, the briefings today revield that the entire JCA is now a program with total USAF oversight. (The AF hates this program) and has now reduced the FY2010 request to 8 C-27 only. I believe you can expect that they will kill the program altogether before these are actually purchased. This is a repeat of the C-7/VC-2 story (Dehavilland Carabou), from the early 60's. The AF objected to such a large fixed wing a/c in the Army inventory, so they won control of the a/c and promptly retired them. To cover the move they fielded the C-123 (which they also hated) to VN because it could do missions the Army needed that the C-130 could not do. As soon as VN was over, AF dropped the C-123 (some survived in the Guard until the early 80's). The Army will once again be made to suffer for AF's childest jealousy's and need to protect territory that it doesn't want a piece of anyway. What crap!
Ron
Earlier I had found this re: the C-27
http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 8W20090507
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Defense will ask Congress to cut in half a $2 billion joint Air Force-Army plan to acquire L-3 Communications Holdings Inc cargo planes, a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters shows.
Instead of as many as 78 C-27J Spartan aircraft, the department will seek to buy 38 -- 13 currently on order plus 25 in fiscal 2010 to 2012, according to the document titled "Resource Management Decision No. 802."
In addition, the Army would transfer the program, known as the Joint Cargo Aircraft, and the direct support airlift mission it involves to the Air Force, the decision memorandum says.
In a May 1-dated letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, 13 members of the House of Representatives voiced opposition to earlier reports of the plan.
"We believe that, if implemented, such cuts would impede the ability of the United States Army, specifically the Army National Guard, to meet intra-theater lift requirements ... as well as severely constrain the Army and Air National Guard's ability to respond to a domestic disaster," the lawmakers wrote.
The aircraft is designed to meet the tactical needs of ground commanders, sometimes referred to as transporting cargo the "last tactical mile," as well as for homeland security emergency missions, including ferrying hurricane supplies.
Lance Martin, a spokesman for L-3, the program's prime contractor, did not immediately return a phone call seeking a comment. The airframe is being supplied by Alenia North America Inc, a unit of Italy's Finmeccanica SpA, under a Pentagon contract awarded in 2007.
The program reduction is expected to be announced later Thursday as part of President Barack Obama's detailed spending plan for fiscal 2010, which starts October 1.
It would add to the list of arms programs targeted for cuts by Gates, who is seeking to shift more resources to deal with wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Reporting by Jim Wolf, Editing by Maureen Bavdek)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
However, the briefings today revield that the entire JCA is now a program with total USAF oversight. (The AF hates this program) and has now reduced the FY2010 request to 8 C-27 only. I believe you can expect that they will kill the program altogether before these are actually purchased. This is a repeat of the C-7/VC-2 story (Dehavilland Carabou), from the early 60's. The AF objected to such a large fixed wing a/c in the Army inventory, so they won control of the a/c and promptly retired them. To cover the move they fielded the C-123 (which they also hated) to VN because it could do missions the Army needed that the C-130 could not do. As soon as VN was over, AF dropped the C-123 (some survived in the Guard until the early 80's). The Army will once again be made to suffer for AF's childest jealousy's and need to protect territory that it doesn't want a piece of anyway. What crap!
Ron
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
Others weigh in on Raptors.
From AF Daily Report 7 May 09
The Air Superiority Gamble: The 2010 budget proposal announced last month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates carry enormous risks for air superiority, erroneously assuming the F-35 can fill the capability gap left by termination of the F-22 program at 186 aircraft, so said defense experts and former senior Air Force officials at an Air Force Association-sponsored budget discussion Wednesday at the National Press Club. Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former assistant vice chief of staff, told the audience that with only a total of 186 airframes, the Air Force would be able to field perhaps 100 combat-coded Raptors, when training, depot maintenance, and other considerations are factored in. "That is the smallest air superiority capability for the US since the end of World War I," McInerney declared. Retired Gen. Richard Hawley, former Air Combat Command boss, said that when requirements were developed for the air superiority fighter that became the F-22 there were three important attributes—super cruise, high altitude operations, and stealth—and it's the combination of all three—which the F-35 cannot match—that provides the survivability needed against advanced surface-to-air systems. Hawley pointed out that the F-35 has the internal capacity for four air-to-air missiles, which in an air superiority environment would not be adequate. The notion that the F-35 is equivalent reveals a "gross ignorance" of the problem faced in an environment where air dominance is being challenged, he asserted. With such a limited Raptor force, the US will have the capability for air dominance in one theater only.
The Air Superiority Gamble: The 2010 budget proposal announced last month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates carry enormous risks for air superiority, erroneously assuming the F-35 can fill the capability gap left by termination of the F-22 program at 186 aircraft, so said defense experts and former senior Air Force officials at an Air Force Association-sponsored budget discussion Wednesday at the National Press Club. Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former assistant vice chief of staff, told the audience that with only a total of 186 airframes, the Air Force would be able to field perhaps 100 combat-coded Raptors, when training, depot maintenance, and other considerations are factored in. "That is the smallest air superiority capability for the US since the end of World War I," McInerney declared. Retired Gen. Richard Hawley, former Air Combat Command boss, said that when requirements were developed for the air superiority fighter that became the F-22 there were three important attributes—super cruise, high altitude operations, and stealth—and it's the combination of all three—which the F-35 cannot match—that provides the survivability needed against advanced surface-to-air systems. Hawley pointed out that the F-35 has the internal capacity for four air-to-air missiles, which in an air superiority environment would not be adequate. The notion that the F-35 is equivalent reveals a "gross ignorance" of the problem faced in an environment where air dominance is being challenged, he asserted. With such a limited Raptor force, the US will have the capability for air dominance in one theater only.
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
From AF Daily Report 8 May 09
Balance and Rebalance: The Obama Administration seeks $115.6 billion for the Air Force in its Fiscal 2010 baseline defense spending request and an additional $16 billion next year to cover USAF's operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Combined, this $131.6 billion is $3 billion less than the service's baseline funds and war supplemental monies appropriated in Fiscal 2009. (Please note: The service's proposal rises to $160.5 billion when factoring in the defense-wide activities that are funded from USAF accounts.) Maj. Gen. Larry Spencer, USAF's budget czar, said Thursday this spending proposal represents "balance and rebalance" of the service's priorities. For example, there is now more focus on maintaining current systems rather than just transitioning to new ones. As testament to this, about one-fifth of the $21.7 billion requested for procurement would go toward systems upgrades, he said. As we've already seen, the service has had to eat some big modernization cuts—the future TSAT communications satellite and CSAR-X rescue helicopter programs are cancelled and there's no money for F-22s beyond 187 or C-17s beyond 205 (see below). The request includes $39.5 billion for personnel (up $2.1 billion from 2009), $30.8 for readiness ($0.2 billion more), $4.9 billion for infrastructure ($0.8 billion less), and $40.4 billion for modernization, including procurement (a $0.4 billion increase). It funds an active duty end strength of 331,700 and provides "adequate" funding to sustain readiness, said Spencer. The request supports procuring 81 fixed-wing aircraft, both manned and unmanned, two modified Army helicopters (yes, see below), one communications satellite, one space-based early warning payload, five space launch vehicles, and 7,139 missiles and bombs. (briefing charts)
Reform Budget: The Defense Department trotted out its $664 billion spending proposal for Fiscal 2010 yesterday, a request meant to position the US military so that it is better situated for conducting irregular warfare, to revamp the way the Pentagon buys weapons, and to provide adequately for military personnel and their families. The request includes both the $534 billion base budget and a $130 billion package to fund the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The base budget represents an increase of $20.5 billion, or 2.1 percent real growth, over the $513.3 enacted in Fiscal 2009. By service, the Navy receives $156.4 billion in the base request, the Air Force $144.5 billion (including $115.6 billion for Air Force-specific needs), the Army $142.1 billion, and defense agency accounts $90.8 billion. By category, the base request includes $136.0 billion for military personnel (up 8.9 percent over 2009), $185.7 billion for operations and maintenance (up 3.7 percent), $107.4 billion for procurement (up 5.6 percent), $78.6 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation (down 1.1 percent), and $21 billion for military construction (down 4.1 percent). Among the highlights, the base budget: adds nearly $2 billion to bolster intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance capability; increases Army and Marine Corps end strength, while also halting Air Force and Navy drawdowns; cancels the Presidential Helicopter program; buys 30 F-35s, including 10 for the Air Force; limits Army brigade combat teams to 45; reduces missile defense spending by $1.2 billion; delays the Navy's next-generation cruiser; restructures the Army's future combat systems; adds 2,400 personnel to the ranks of special operations forces, a four percent increase; and seeks to grow DOD's acquisition workforce by 20,000 by 2015, as it also reduces dependence on support service contractors. (overview and summary charts
Balance and Rebalance: The Obama Administration seeks $115.6 billion for the Air Force in its Fiscal 2010 baseline defense spending request and an additional $16 billion next year to cover USAF's operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Combined, this $131.6 billion is $3 billion less than the service's baseline funds and war supplemental monies appropriated in Fiscal 2009. (Please note: The service's proposal rises to $160.5 billion when factoring in the defense-wide activities that are funded from USAF accounts.) Maj. Gen. Larry Spencer, USAF's budget czar, said Thursday this spending proposal represents "balance and rebalance" of the service's priorities. For example, there is now more focus on maintaining current systems rather than just transitioning to new ones. As testament to this, about one-fifth of the $21.7 billion requested for procurement would go toward systems upgrades, he said. As we've already seen, the service has had to eat some big modernization cuts—the future TSAT communications satellite and CSAR-X rescue helicopter programs are cancelled and there's no money for F-22s beyond 187 or C-17s beyond 205 (see below). The request includes $39.5 billion for personnel (up $2.1 billion from 2009), $30.8 for readiness ($0.2 billion more), $4.9 billion for infrastructure ($0.8 billion less), and $40.4 billion for modernization, including procurement (a $0.4 billion increase). It funds an active duty end strength of 331,700 and provides "adequate" funding to sustain readiness, said Spencer. The request supports procuring 81 fixed-wing aircraft, both manned and unmanned, two modified Army helicopters (yes, see below), one communications satellite, one space-based early warning payload, five space launch vehicles, and 7,139 missiles and bombs. (briefing charts)
Reform Budget: The Defense Department trotted out its $664 billion spending proposal for Fiscal 2010 yesterday, a request meant to position the US military so that it is better situated for conducting irregular warfare, to revamp the way the Pentagon buys weapons, and to provide adequately for military personnel and their families. The request includes both the $534 billion base budget and a $130 billion package to fund the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The base budget represents an increase of $20.5 billion, or 2.1 percent real growth, over the $513.3 enacted in Fiscal 2009. By service, the Navy receives $156.4 billion in the base request, the Air Force $144.5 billion (including $115.6 billion for Air Force-specific needs), the Army $142.1 billion, and defense agency accounts $90.8 billion. By category, the base request includes $136.0 billion for military personnel (up 8.9 percent over 2009), $185.7 billion for operations and maintenance (up 3.7 percent), $107.4 billion for procurement (up 5.6 percent), $78.6 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation (down 1.1 percent), and $21 billion for military construction (down 4.1 percent). Among the highlights, the base budget: adds nearly $2 billion to bolster intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance capability; increases Army and Marine Corps end strength, while also halting Air Force and Navy drawdowns; cancels the Presidential Helicopter program; buys 30 F-35s, including 10 for the Air Force; limits Army brigade combat teams to 45; reduces missile defense spending by $1.2 billion; delays the Navy's next-generation cruiser; restructures the Army's future combat systems; adds 2,400 personnel to the ranks of special operations forces, a four percent increase; and seeks to grow DOD's acquisition workforce by 20,000 by 2015, as it also reduces dependence on support service contractors. (overview and summary charts
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
From AF Daily Report 8 May 09btaylo24 wrote:Looks like the F22 has had it
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... -programs/
Fighter Moves: President Obama has apparently signed off on Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recommendation to end the F-22 program at 187 aircraft. Air Force budget chief Maj. Gen. Larry Spencer told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Thursday that the service can "take advantage of this window" during which USAF expects to have air dominance. It can save some money by foregoing any more F-22s and retiring 250 F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s, which he said will come mostly from the active duty fleet, but some from the Guard and Reserve as well. The specifics are being worked out, budget officials said. To keep the Air Force from losing too much capability, the remaining fighter force will get about $1 billion worth of radar and software upgrades; there'll be an uptick in the number of air-to-air munitions purchased; and the F-35 program will be "accelerated." However, that's the F-35 overall—the Air Force-specific 2010 purchase will actually decline from 13 aircraft to 10. The overall idea in combat aircraft is to "rebalance" the Air Force "towards procurement of proven and multi-role platforms," the service said. The budget contains $64 million for F-22 shutdown costs, but that won't be the whole bill.
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
More C-17s for 2009 War bill
From AF Daily Report 18 May 09
House Approves More C-17s for 2009 War Bill: The House passed its version of the Fiscal 2009 war supplemental, including funding eight more C-17 airlifters. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee version does not include additional C-17s. A group of Senators, led by Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), had petitioned appropriations chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to add 15 C-17s to the 2009 supplemental, an increase of seven over the House number, but, according to a May 13 CongressDaily report, Inouye wanted to keep the supplemental "as clean as possible." He said he would prefer to add an unspecified number of C-17s to the 2010 budget. And yet, the door might not be entirely closed, since a May 14 report by The Hill notes that Inouye believes funding for the C-17s might be tacked on to the supplemental during debate on the Senate floor, slated for Tuesday. Either way, there appears to be significant bipartisan support to keep the C-17 production line open beyond the 205 proposed in the new defense budget, at least until the Pentagon completes mobility studies intended to clarify future tactical and strategic airlift requirements.
House Approves More C-17s for 2009 War Bill: The House passed its version of the Fiscal 2009 war supplemental, including funding eight more C-17 airlifters. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee version does not include additional C-17s. A group of Senators, led by Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), had petitioned appropriations chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to add 15 C-17s to the 2009 supplemental, an increase of seven over the House number, but, according to a May 13 CongressDaily report, Inouye wanted to keep the supplemental "as clean as possible." He said he would prefer to add an unspecified number of C-17s to the 2010 budget. And yet, the door might not be entirely closed, since a May 14 report by The Hill notes that Inouye believes funding for the C-17s might be tacked on to the supplemental during debate on the Senate floor, slated for Tuesday. Either way, there appears to be significant bipartisan support to keep the C-17 production line open beyond the 205 proposed in the new defense budget, at least until the Pentagon completes mobility studies intended to clarify future tactical and strategic airlift requirements.
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
From AF Daily Report 26 May 09
Frustration Central: It's become clear that lawmakers are becoming increasingly irate that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has issued a budget proposal with striking force structure changes across the board, but particularly for the Air Force, without providing evidence of studied analysis and review. At one point last week at the House Armed Services air-land forces panel hearing on Air Force modernization, chairman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) declared that the 2010 defense budget has "serious policy implications" for future force structure and yet the "request did not include any information or data regarding plans, programs, or budgets for Fiscal Year 2011 and beyond." Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), ranking member of the panel, suggested, "It appears to me that in many cases, funding limitations in the FY 2010 budget topline were the sole driver in major policy decisions." Abercrombie noted the "significant changes" to Air Force modernization programs. He and other lawmakers expressed concern about decisions that arbitrarily ends F-22 production, that bank much of the nation's tactical air capability on an unproven F-35, that shed some 250 legacy fighters earlier than anticipated and without Congressional consultation, that cancel the combat search and rescue helicopter replacement program, and that undercuts the Joint Cargo Aircraft program. Bartlett asserted: "We can't see the strategy. We can't see the assumptions. We can't see the plan for the out years." Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) went further, describing that hearing and others as "a series of testimonies that can only lightly be described as incredible Pentagon double talk."
Frustration Central: It's become clear that lawmakers are becoming increasingly irate that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has issued a budget proposal with striking force structure changes across the board, but particularly for the Air Force, without providing evidence of studied analysis and review. At one point last week at the House Armed Services air-land forces panel hearing on Air Force modernization, chairman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) declared that the 2010 defense budget has "serious policy implications" for future force structure and yet the "request did not include any information or data regarding plans, programs, or budgets for Fiscal Year 2011 and beyond." Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), ranking member of the panel, suggested, "It appears to me that in many cases, funding limitations in the FY 2010 budget topline were the sole driver in major policy decisions." Abercrombie noted the "significant changes" to Air Force modernization programs. He and other lawmakers expressed concern about decisions that arbitrarily ends F-22 production, that bank much of the nation's tactical air capability on an unproven F-35, that shed some 250 legacy fighters earlier than anticipated and without Congressional consultation, that cancel the combat search and rescue helicopter replacement program, and that undercuts the Joint Cargo Aircraft program. Bartlett asserted: "We can't see the strategy. We can't see the assumptions. We can't see the plan for the out years." Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) went further, describing that hearing and others as "a series of testimonies that can only lightly be described as incredible Pentagon double talk."
GZR_SACTARGETS
-
GZR_Sactargets
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 984
- Joined: 23 Aug 2006, 19:20
- Version: FS9
- Location: PAPILLION, NEBRASKA(Near OFFUTT AFB-KOFF)
From AF Daily Report 26 May 09
Graveyard of Priorities: In October, 2006, the Air Force leadership announced the service's top five procurement priorities. They were (1) KC-X tanker; (2) CSAR-X combat search and rescue helicopter; (3) space-based early warning and communications satellites; (4) F-35 fighter; and (5) the next-generation long-range bomber. Just 30 months later, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has rendered all but one of these top priorities kaput; the F-35 was preserved. Gates promises a restart of the KC-X program he terminated last fall and will let the Air Force buy some new versions of existing satellites, but he has terminated the CSAR-X and Transformational Satellite (TSAT), with extreme prejudice—nobody expects them to come back in their previous form. No one's sure when the bomber program will be reconstituted, either. Service officials say that Air Force long-range plans and roadmaps will have to be completely re-thought and that these will flow (it's getting to be a hackneyed phrase) from the Quadrennial Defense Review. An Air Force spokeswoman said the service hasn't had time to build a new top procurement priorities list, given the pace at which program decisions are being made. Watch this space.
Graveyard of Priorities: In October, 2006, the Air Force leadership announced the service's top five procurement priorities. They were (1) KC-X tanker; (2) CSAR-X combat search and rescue helicopter; (3) space-based early warning and communications satellites; (4) F-35 fighter; and (5) the next-generation long-range bomber. Just 30 months later, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has rendered all but one of these top priorities kaput; the F-35 was preserved. Gates promises a restart of the KC-X program he terminated last fall and will let the Air Force buy some new versions of existing satellites, but he has terminated the CSAR-X and Transformational Satellite (TSAT), with extreme prejudice—nobody expects them to come back in their previous form. No one's sure when the bomber program will be reconstituted, either. Service officials say that Air Force long-range plans and roadmaps will have to be completely re-thought and that these will flow (it's getting to be a hackneyed phrase) from the Quadrennial Defense Review. An Air Force spokeswoman said the service hasn't had time to build a new top procurement priorities list, given the pace at which program decisions are being made. Watch this space.
GZR_SACTARGETS