Thread: The Four Decommissioned U.S. Aircraft Carriers Are

Air Force Chiefs: Stop Making Those Stealth Jets

By Noah Shachtman April 13, 2009 | 11:46 am
Categories: Air Force, Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians




When the Pentagon brass announced the other day that the heads of the Air Force "uniformly endorsed" shutting down production of their most advanced stealth fighter jet, Pentagon reporters’ jaws dropped to the floor. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that the Air Force leadership was warning that they absolutely must have 200 more of the F-22 Raptors. Even a few weeks ago, they were saying that it was imperative that another 60 of the planes get built. "When did that change for them?" one journalist asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The answer, according to the Pentagon’s transcript:

SEC. GATES: Well, you’ll have to ask them. (Chuckles.)

So today, the civilian and uniformed chiefs of the Air Force took to the pages of the Washington Post to double-pinky swear that they absolutely loved the idea of ending the fighter jet project that the service had so vigorously defended for so long. Promise.
"The F-22 is a vital tool in the military’s arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz write." But the time has come to move on." We know we said we needed more planes, they added. But the Defense Department changed its mind about which battles we’re mostly likely to fight in the future. And based on those scenarios, maybe we don’t need as many Raptors. Besides, "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."
But does that mean it’s time to shut down the pro-Raptor ad campaigns? Pull the plug on the F-22 lobbying efforts? Stop running those thanks-to-Obama-and-Gates-the-Russians-and-Chinese-will-eat-our-babies op-eds? Former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne, for one, is not quite ready to give up the fight.
"I see this not as a single action stopping the F-22 well below the recommended military level; but as a broader action by a weary Defense
Department to limit our sovereign options in the foggy future, by postulating ‘Peace in our Time,’" he writes over at DoD Buzz. Sounds like at least some grumbling is going to continue.
[Photo: USAF]

ALSO:

• Stealth Jet Gets Online Push, as a Jobs Program
• Obama Asks for Stealth Jets in Iraq, Astan Budget
• Gates: F-22 Has No Role in War on Terror
• Wheedling More F-22s with Bonus Bucks
• Air Force Asks for More F-22s
• First F-22 Raptor "Shot Down"
• How the Air Force Lost Control of the Skies (Maybe)
• Picture This: Transonic Jet Gathers Clouds
• Raptor Becomes "F-, A-, B-, E-, EA-, RC-, AWACS… 22"
• Birds Bomb F-22s
• Raptor Shies from a Fight
• Raptor Critic Lashes Out
• Raptor = Satellite Killer?
• Air Force Starts to Sing from Gates’ Hymnal
• Stealth Jets Back in Action

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...en-the-pentag/

As China builds its military, non-state combatants challenge nations around the world, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons continues apace, this is no time to undermine a military

Disarming America's Military

- Alan Caruba
Wednesday, September 28, 2011

In the preamble of the Constitution, the founding fathers made clear their priorities and among them was “provide for the common defense” to “secure the blessings of liberty.”
Ramping up an army and navy was an early priority of the nation’s first presidents because, then as now, the United States had real enemies.
The congressional “super committee” charged with finding cuts in the budget is testimony to the failure of Congress to attend to one of its primary duties and to the gridlock of partisanship. The notion of an automatic across-the-board budget cut of $1.5 trillion is aimed at the growth in spending over the next decade, not a reduction in those programs that are responsible for an unsustainable debt.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released on September 28 revealed that “Americans think that tax hikes are more likely than spending cuts in any deficit reduction deal that comes out of Congress and are more convinced than ever that any new tax monies will be spent on new government programs.”
Nearly two-thirds of American adults, 62%, have no confidence in Congress’s ability to actually reduce spending for the purpose of reducing the federal deficit. The latest poll on this topic represented an increase of four points over the previous one in February.
In an article posted on Military.com, a September 26 report released by the House Armed Services Committee warned that $465 billion in cuts to the defense budget over ten years would “transform a Superpower into a Regional Power” and return the military to funding levels of “the post-Vietnam Carter era of the late 1970s.”
The report contemplated cuts that would “eliminate 60 ships, two carrier battle groups, and over 200,000 troops through 2021. The Army would lose ground combat vehicles. The Navy would suffer cuts in ship building and replacements for older ships. The Air Force would likely lose the next generation bombers and aerial refueling tanker aircraft. The Marine Corps would lose personnel carriers and indefinitely postpone replacements for new amphibious assault vehicles and ships.
Michael M. Dunn, president of the Air Force Association, in a memo to its members, referred to the cuts as draconian, noting that “It would gut many programs, throw tens of thousands of troops out of work, cause major force reductions, and necessitate closing bases. Our allies would begin to question our commitments in both conventional and extended deterrence realms.”
The budget and debt problems the nation faces are based in large part on our so-called “entitlement” programs that are hugely wasteful and in need of reform. There are entire federal departments such as Education that could be eliminated to the benefit of the nation, returning this function to the states instead.
Lost in the current debate is the fact that it is Congress that authorizes the funding of the many programs that waste millions on a weekly basis. An across-the-board cut ignores priorities and, among them all, defense is the most essential.
Lost, too, is the realization that the U.S. has entered into an entirely new era of warfare. In a speech in June to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, William J. Lyon, Deputy Secretary of Defense, noted that “For centuries, the most economically developed nations wielded the most lethal military power”, but not anymore.
How has war changed? Think about this, “Our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have now lasted longer than the U.S. participation in World War I and World War II combined,” said Lyon. “We must sustain long-term commitments for a range of plausible conflicts.” Moreover, today’s military must be ready for both high-end and low-end (insurgencies) threats.” And the newest threat, cyberwarfare.
No one suggests that the Defense Department is a paragon or that it does not need to review issues such as its pension programs that begin at age 38 when retired personnel have twenty more years of productivity left. Even with aspects of the military that need revision, a United States of America with a military expected to fight with the weapons of the Vietnam era is an invitation to the nation’s enemies.
A look back over the era since the end of World War Two in 1945 demonstrates that the world has been a far safer place precisely because America has been a military superpower.
As China builds its military, non-state combatants challenge nations around the world, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons continues apace, this is no time to undermine a military that has answered the nation’s call to arms with courage and distinction.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40794

Space Palace: China prepares to colonize Universe

Aircraft Carrier, Stealth Fighter And Now Drone: China's Military Is "Catching Up"

Submitted by Tyler Durden
06/27/2011 09:56 -0400
164 comments

Some time ago it was revealed that in its rush to "catch up" with western military technology, China has now developed an aircraft carrier and a stealth fighter (reverse engineering efficiency notwithstanding). Now, it appears that China has developed its first ever unmanned drone. Wired has the latest: "It was another big reveal in a long history of them. Six months after the Chinese air force let the first photos of its new stealth fighter
leak online, Beijing’s military has “accidentally” showed off another
secretive weapon system: a small drone, apparently used to scout ahead
of China’s fast-growing fleet of warships. Details of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle — gleaned entirely from a snapshot
(.pdf) taken by a Japanese navy patrol plane last week — are sketchy,
at best. But the new UAV certainly represents a step forward in China’s development of American-style spy drones." Of course, the "leak" is anything but, and is merely another attempt to demonstrate its ongoing scramble to keep up with the US across all verticals. After all: why peg to the dollar, if you can't peg to the military. And while these attempts at oneupmanship are childish, expect to see a very vocal response from the headline hungry general population which may soon find itself in a "panic" over the fact that the biggest communist power in the world is suddenly getting "just as strong."



From Wired:

The drone (pictured above) appears to be small, possibly no more than a dozen feet in length. Since it was spotted far from land in the company of Chinese warships, it’s likely that the flying robot is launched from the helicopter flight deck of a frigate or destroyer — though the exact methods of launch and recovery remain unclear. (U.S. naval drones use catapults or take off vertically.) The UAV’s apparent small size implies a limited range and basic sensors, particularly given China’s problems building robots and advanced military electronics.

The circumstances of the pilotless plane’s revelation could offer hints about its role. Early this month, the Chinese navy sailed 11 warships through international waters between two Japanese islands. The two-week deployment — a new, semi-annual tradition for the rapidly-expanding Chinese navy — was probably meant as a display of strength, and included target practice for the ships’ crews.

It just so happens, a drone is an excellent way to spot targets for long-range gunfire and missiles — especially for a navy that lacks the ultra-high-tech satellites the U.S. Navy takes for granted. And what could be more impressive for foreign audiences than “accidentally” letting the Japanese photograph the new UAV in action?

For all that, the Chinese ‘bot could be fairly dated technology.

Considering where the drone was spotted — at sea, and above warships — and its apparent size, it’s probably a rough analogue to the U.S. Navy’s RQ-2 Pioneer. During its heyday in 1991, that drone helped the battleship USS Missouri aim its massive, 16-inch guns at Iraqi shore targets. Today, the Pioneer has been superseded in American service by far more sophisticated ship-launched drones.

Wired's conclusion is spot on:

Which is to say: yes, the Chinese have a new UAV, and it’s pretty cool. But publicly launching a flying robot from the deck of a warship for the first time just means the People’s Liberation Army Navy is finally catching up to the where the U.S. Navy was … 20 years ago.

Now... if only they could print 20 times as much as the Fed all shall be well.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/air...itary-catching

British Army Has More Generals Than Tanks!

More generals than tanks! Anger over bloated army which is stuffed with penpushers

Three times more officers than Apache helicopters

Claims lack of capacity is hitting troops' morale

By Ian Drury
Last updated at 6:06 PM on 5th October 2011
113 Comments

The Army has more top brass than battle tanks, alarming statistics have revealed.

There are 256 brigadiers and generals but just 200 Challenger II tanks, according to the figures uncovered by a former senior military intelligence officer.

It also emerged there are three times more senior officers than Apache attack helicopters, which play a vital role in Afghanistan.

Alarming: New figures have found there are more than 250 brigadiers and generals in the British Army but there are just 200 active Challenger tanks

The disturbing imbalances were discovered by Frank Ledwidge, who served on the frontline in Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo.

‘Our priorities are hugely skewed,’ he said. ‘The British Army is over-burdened and over-staffed with senior ranks.

‘We need to think about cutting top brass and the focus now should be on our conflicts rather than promotion.’

He believes retaining so many one-star generals and above earning £100,000-a-year plus while cutting spending is devastating morale in the Armed Forces.

One tank officer said: ‘When the MoD is making large cuts to equipment and personnel, the troops are rightly going to question why we need to retain so many well-paid senior officers living a good life.’

The Royal Navy is suffering a similar plight with more admirals than active warships, according to an 2008 study.

Following the recent defence cuts, the senior service now has just 20 fighting surface ships, which are destroyers and frigates.

Rare sight: The Army has three times more senior officers than it does Apache attack helicopters

Mr Ledwidge’s figures were gleaned from official statistics and published in his new book Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He claims only around 200 of the UK’s force of 350 Challenger II main battle tanks are in service, with the others in storage.

It was reported this year that the number of tanks in operation could fall as low as 50 as the Ministry of Defence looks to make £4.7billion of budget cuts. It also needs to eliminate a £38billion deficit in the equipment programme.

At a peak during World War Two, Britain produced more than 30,000 tanks. The Challenger II main battle tank is considered the most complex vehicle in the nation’s arsenal.

The Royal Tank Regiment – the world’s oldest tank unit – has been at the forefront of armoured warfare since the vehicles were used to smash through First World War German trenches in 1917.

Challenger IIs were used in Iraq in 2003 but the difficult terrain of Afghanistan means they have not been deployed there.

Instead, the regiment has transferred its skills to a new range of more manoeuvrable armoured vehicles, including Mastiffs and Warthogs, in the fight against the Taliban.

The Army currently has more than 3,000 armoured vehicles.

The MoD believes the Army can cope with fewer tanks as traditional heavy warfare will be replaced by more counter-insurgency campaigns, such as in Afghanistan.


Last night the MoD said the number of senior officers had dropped slightly from the figures obtained this year by Mr Ledwidge.

A spokesman said: ‘As we restructure for the future, we are reducing the number of senior officers, which currently stands at about 230.

‘Modern armies require more than just tanks. Operations require a range of armoured vehicles.’

Under the spending cuts, the Armed Forces will lose at least 22,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen within four years, more than ten per cent of their number.

The Navy was ordered to axe HMS Ark Royal and retire the fleet of Harrier jump jets.

The RAF was forced to send its new Nimrod MRA4 maritime surveillance aircraft to the wreckers’ yard.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...enpushers.html

bttt

Chinese fighter jet nose-dives into field at show

One pilot ejects to safety but another is missing, presumed dead

Video at the link

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 10/14/2011 8:55:37 AM ET 2011-10-14T12:55:37

BEIJING - A Chinese air force jet crashed at an air show Friday, leaving one of the pilots missing and presumed dead.

Footage aired by China Central Television showed the jet sputtering and then nose-diving into a field outside the northern city of Xi'an as one of the pilots ejected from the cockpit and landed beneath an open parachute.

Only one parachute was seen opening, and the plane burst into flames upon crashing.

The other pilot's seat appeared not to have ejected.

Trapped
The pilot who ejected suffered only minor injuries, but his comrade appeared to have been trapped in the doomed plane, the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing eyewitnesses and air show organizer, He Liang.

Li Yibo / AP

A plume of smoke is seen after an aircraft crashed during an air show in China Friday, in this photo released by China's Xinhua News Agency.

"One pilot parachuted out of the plane and is alive, the search for another pilot is ongoing," the China International General Aviation

Convention told the AFP news agency in a statement. "There were no casualties on the ground."

The plane crashed more than a mile from the nearest onlookers.

Xinhua said the plane was a two-seater JH-7 "Flying Leopard" fighter-bomber, but AFP cited a report that it was a Xiaolong or "Fierce Dragon" fighter jet.

AFP said U.S. aerobatic teams along with others from Hungary, Sweden, and Lithuania were invited to take part in the three-day show.

The crash is being investigated and it wasn't clear if mechanical problems or pilot error was to blame.

The Chinese-made JH-7 entered service in 2004 and is a mainstay of the country's air force and naval aviation, with more than 100 built.

At least one of the planes crashed previously during a China-Russian joint exercise in 2009, killing both pilots.

China rarely released information about military accidents, but the public nature of the crash and the rapid spread of images of it happening on the Internet made it impossible to keep secret.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44902049/ns ... ?GT1=43001

Hard Landing - "Pride Of China" Fighter Jet Nosedives Into Field During Airshow

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/14/2011 11:16 -0400
Comments: 201 / Reads: 11,367

A few days ago we brought you the delightful Chinese boat launch straight into the river bottom. Today, we observe the curious case of the JH-7 "Flying Leopard" which during an exhibition airshow decided to show just how effective gravity is at combating those pesky "highly reliable license-built Spey Mk202 engines" which as the AP reports were "considered unlikely that both would have stalled at the same time"...They stalled. "The Chinese-made JH-7 entered service in 2004 and is a mainstay of the country's air force and naval aviation, with more than 100 built." Also, how do you spell oops in Mandarin? "China rarely released information about military accidents, but the public nature of the crash and the rapid spread of images of it happening on the Internet made it impossible to keep secret." Yeah, sorry about that. Next: we can't wait to see the official launch of the first (and only) Chinese aircraft carrier.



h/t Manal

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/pride-chi ... ng-airshow

Harrier jump jets culled in Britain find sanctuary in US

US military buys entire fleet of vertical-takeoff-and-landing warplanes scrapped in UK strategic defence review

Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Tuesday 15 November 2011 14.55 EST


A Harrier is attended by ground crew at an airbase in southern Italy in 1999, when the planes were involved in Nato attacks in the former Yugoslavia, Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA Archive/Press Association Images

The Royal Navy's entire fleet of Harrier jump jets, the British plane controversially scrapped in last year's defence review, has been saved – by the US military.

All 74 of the planes, which were permanently grounded by the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), are to fly again for the US marines, in a deal that is expected to be closed within a week.

The Ministry of Defence said negotiations were continuing but were in their final stages. And reports in the US suggested the marines were already confidently preparing for the Harriers' arrival.

The sale of the Harriers is bound to raise fresh questions about the wisdom of retiring the much-admired aircraft, which the Americans intend to use until 2025.

Speaking to the NavyTimes, Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had been recently upgraded, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.

"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them," he said. "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."

The US military already has its own fleet of Harriers, and converting the British planes to fire American missiles can be done relatively easily.

The price of the deal has not been disclosed, but Heinrich said the US was paying $50m (£32m) for spare parts alone.

The British Harriers have been kept in storage at RAF Cottesmore, in Rutland, where they have been maintained prior to sale.

Their retirement was criticised when the SDSR was published, last year, and again when British forces became involved in operations to defend Libyan civilians during the country's revolution.

The MoD has maintained, however, that it had no choice, because of cost-cutting forced upon a department where budgets were out of control.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a critic of SDSR, said: "The issue is not that the US marines are buying the Harriers: it's that the US still thinks that the Harriers are viable aircraft. They still think there is a need for them."

The MoD said it was negotiating the best deal it could, and that scrapping the Harrier would save hundreds of millions of pounds over the next decade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/1 ... britain-us

Defence review: see the list of cuts in full

The strategic defence and security review (SDSR) will shape British military policy for decades.

Find out what was announced http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... -cuts-list