It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FY 2010 budget released

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
Some interesting twists in the FY 2010 budget that was released today.

Done. Final acquisition is 187 there will be no increase.

Bids will be taken this summer.

Funds will be increased for airlift and tankers.

LRIP for 2010 increased to 30. Funds increased to $11.9B.


Second aircraft cancelled, first goes on as planned.

That's just the aviation portion of the budget. There was also an increase for 50 more MQ-9 Reapers, as well as 31 F/A-18s (no word on models), and an increase for manned ISR aircraft.

Twitter Feed

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:35 PM
Story here Huffington post doesn't look good for aircraft like the F22 amongst others, what happens if they lose a few in the future? will they be able to replace them if the lines have been shut down? or will they end up canabilising some for spares until they are gradually phased out in a decade or so?

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:37 PM
Once the line is shut down, it's done. It would drive the price up HUGELY if they had to restart the line to build more aircraft.

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:09 PM
A few other interesting notes. They want 513 F-35s over the next 5 years, to go with retiring the oldest 250 fighters.

VH-71, and next gen bomber would be scrapped as well.

Here's the part that I like. Gates wants to cancel the VH-71, but maintains that a new Presidential helicopter is necessary.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 05:15 PM
just reading in:

[quote[The Lockheed/AgustaWestland VH-71A presidential helicopter would also be scrapped, along with plans to start developing a next-generation bomber.


posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Here's the part that I like. Gates wants to cancel the VH-71, but maintains that a new Presidential helicopter is necessary.

From what I gather, Lockheed have been rather inept in running the program.

(Apparently they are pretty much ignoring Agusta-Westland)

Perhaps an investigation by the govt is necessary - and if negligence is found, fine Lockheed for wasting public money.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:39 AM

Done. Final acquisition is 187 there will be no increase.

What will Carlo Kopp do now???

EDIT: Maybe an evolved F-111 with better air - to air capabilities than both the F-22 and F-35, with his company modifying existing aircraft and royalties payed to Carlo himself?

[edit on 7/4/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:47 AM
Oh man, there's a concept I haven't thought of for a while. I needed a laugh as well, thanks mate!

With regards to the Presidential helo, the figures I heard were around an original budget of US$6 billion, which has since blown out to US$13 billion with no real prospect of a product meeting requirements at the end. If this is indeed the case, sounds like it needed close scrutiny. Funny to compare that program with the Australian PM's war chariot, and his inability to get a decently cooked meal

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

he may have to LUV the F-35 hahahahahahahahaha

his whole existance is in jeapody.

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:26 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

513 F-35 in FIVE years? Hahahahh what a JOKE like this entire budget. That will NEVER happen.

[edit on 7/4/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:58 PM
It still has to pass Congress, I'm hoping SOME changes are made, perhaps an additional 20 or so Raptors. And scrap the CSAR-X? Lower the MDA budget and cut its programs, days after North Korea launched an MRBM!? Talk about delusion. But lets make sure there is plenty of money around for CEO's.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by WestPoint23]

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 01:39 PM
There's been a slight change to the Hornet purchase. NAVAIR wanted to get 22 E/Fs and 20 Growlers. The FY10 budget is for 8 Es, 1 F, and 22 Growlers.

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:31 PM
Congress is not going to allow some of that. Im betting that they put in for more raptors.

The presidential chopter will be killed as no one want that hot potato. The unit cost is almost as bad as the Raptor.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by FredT

Out of all the programs that they're trying to kill, tacair is the only one without a backup. DDG-1000 will be offset by more DDG-51s. The Army FCS will be offset by more MRAPs. There's nothing to backstop the tacair loss that's proposed.

However, the tactical airpower programmes were alone among the budget cuts for their lack of offsetting increases. While the DDG-1000 would be replaced by reactivating DDG-51 destroyers, and the FCS vehicles would initially be backfilled with mine-resistant ambush vehicles, there are no replacements for the losses of fighters from the inventory.

In Gates's view, the Pentagon is over-invested in tactical combat aircraft optimised for conventional conflict against a peer-competitor, a belief he has repeated in speeches for more than a year.

"Every defence dollar spent to overinsure against a remote or diminishing risk or, in effect, to run up the score in capability where the United States is already dominant is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates says.


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:31 PM
Its amazing how little attention that Gates is paying to Russia, China, and Iran in regards to fighter aircraft. He thinks we overspent when it comes to tactical aircraft, and yet does not realize that the majority of our tactical aircraft are old enough to drink. In my unit the YOUNGEST F-16 we have, rolled off the line in 1988, and like the F-15s are showing their age.

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:17 AM
200+ F-22s psychologically sounds a whole lot more than 187.

And literally as well, 15-20 F-22 are a whole lot more in terms of firepower, and strategic capability.
Why just put em up as a squadron in Aviano or Ramstein or something and all future 'mini-invasions' by Russia and the likes will be thought out greatly before executing.

Or maybe set up the squadron in Turkey. what say?

What are F-22 non-CONUS deployments as of now? Kadena and where else?

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:33 AM
Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz had an interesting Op-ed in the Washington Post. They talk about how they convinced them to stop production on the F-22.

Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:59 AM
AWST has more detail on the budget which I will post later but as noted before

Presidential Chopter Dead (500 million per for a rotary wing airframe
F-22 Dead
C-17 Dead (But non US purchases may keep the line active for 1-2 more years
Mid cource misside defence Everything frozen or killed (Interceptors caped at 26 22 in Alaska and 4 in California)
ABL - reduced funding and second protptype Dead

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 07:50 AM

April 13, 2009 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The top two bosses of the United States Air Force (USAF), Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Mr. Michael Donley and the top serving military man, General Schwartz are wrong about the future air power roadmap for the service.

In an astonishing surrender of future air capability, the two have written a piece that showed up in the Washington Post called, “Moving Beyond the F-22”. In it, they say it is time to stop funding the F-22 and move on toward full funding of the F-35. The reasons they give for this are seriously flawed. It ends with a wild blue sky marking statement claiming, “Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.”

First, is the top USAF leadership insane? I mean that with all due respect because these are not dumb people, they are just seriously misled on what defines air power capability and risk.

There are several good and key points in this article. Basically what he's saying is that the OPED written by Donley and Shwartz shows that either they have no clue how to fight future wars, or they're completely insane. I liked his points about how they say we can't afford the numbers of F-22s they want, but we're going to be working on a 6th gen fighter soon. Where exactly is that money going to come from??

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 11:38 AM
Gates in a speech at Maxwell AFB recently:

When examining the issue of air supremacy, we had to ask, what is the right mix of weapons to deal with the span of threats? What are the things that the F-22 and only the F-22 can do? And where would it be required? There is no doubt the F-22 has unique capabilities that we need, the penetration and defeat of an advanced enemy air defense and fighter fleet. But the F-22 is, in effect, a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios to overcome advanced enemy fighters and air defense systems. In assessing the F-22 requirements, we also considered the advanced stealth and superior air-to-ground capabilities provided by the fifth-generation F-35s now being accelerated in this budget, the growing capability in range of unmanned platforms like the Reaper and other systems in the Air Force and the other services.

I also considered the fact that Russia is roughly six years away from an initial operating capability of a fifth-generation fighter, and the Chinese 10 to 12 years away. By then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our inventory. In light of all these factors and on the recommendations of the secretary of the Air Force and the chief of staff, I concluded that 183, program of record since 2005, plus four would be a sufficient number to meet the F-22 requirement. To be clear, the F-22 program of record is codified in the FY 2005 budget. And all budgets since will be completed, not cut, as many have said and written.

How is taking and keeping air superiority in ANY conflict a "niche" role?

The generals are unhappy about this too:

Top Air Force generals met earlier this week to discuss the decision to end production of the F-22 at 187 aircraft, and their reaction was strong. Appraisals of the response range from “surprise and concern” to “shock and dismay,” senior service officials and those familiar with the discussion told the Daily Report. One senior service official said the leadership will “work through” the situation and see if something can be done “to address the F-22 in the quadrennial defense review.” However, by then it will likely be too late as the suppliers of F-22 long-lead-time parts and materials will have stopped work, and the cost to reconstitute those parts of the production line might be too tough for even the most ardent F-22 supporters in Congress to support.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in