Zitat:
Obama Request Includes Four Raptors


The Obama administration’s first off-book supplemental appropriations request includes $11.6 billion to refurbish or replace war-torn equipment, as well as $600 million to buy four F-22 Raptors to replace four legacy fighters lost due to combat operations.

Another $9.8 billion is requested “to improve the protection of our forces with lightweight body armor, armored vehicles, safe and secure operating bases, identity management for access control, and persistent surveillance capabilities,” according to the White House. Likewise, $1.5 billion is sought for counter-improvised explosive device efforts....

revan schrieb:Das hatten wir Tatsächlich doch bleibt es nicht nur bei Überschall Raketen der Trend geht über in Hyperschall Bereich oder sogar zu ASBMs. Auch wurde der Harpoon Block III gestrichen wegen Kostenexplosion und was die Abwehr der Harpoon anbelangt so lest sich dieser mit CIWS abwehren. Überschallflugkörper erst ab RAM oder ESSM und ASBMs erst ab SM3 und das nur bedingt.

Zitat:Ich finde das du das sehr Einseitig betrachtest, da es Tatsächlich in Kongress und den Senat wie den Verteidigungsausschuss Gruppen gibt die ssks fordern. Wie du richtig gesagt hast kann man ssks vorgeschoben in Japan oder Süd Korea oder anderen Basen rund um den Globus unterhalten die durchaus vorhanden sind. Diese währen als Defensiv Waffe gerade gegen Gegner wie China von großen Nutzen auch sind ssks kostengünstiger und nicht so wartungsintensiv wie SSNs. In Kampf sind sie einen SSN sogar überlegen da sie die selbe Feuerkraft aufbringen können und keine Geräusche erzeugen, die US Navy war tief beeindruckt von der Leistung der Übungs SSKs so das es sogar eine norwegischen SSK gemietet hat samt Mannschaft. Auch in Litoralen Gewässern sind SSKs SSNs weit überlegen und die NAVY braucht Litorale Fähigkeiten wie es das LCS beweist dass sich auch für anderen Einsätze kaum eignet.

Zitat:Z.b die Französische La Fayette Klasse oder die für Singapur gebaute Formidable Klasse auch behauptet der Russe ebenfalls Stealth Fragaten bauen zu wollen.

spooky schrieb:wie kann man von einem trend sprechen wenn, die die schon immer unterschallschnelle ashm eingesetztz haben dies heute noch tun (im prinzip alle staaten die auf westliche technik setzen) und die, die schon immer überschallschnelle flk hatten diese auch heute noch haben (sprich russische technik bzw. russ/indisch)? dabei sollte manbedenken, das selbst russland auf vielen schiffen z.b. auch die ss-n-25 switchblades (unterschallschnell) einsetzt und das china augenscheinlich bis dato auch nur unterschallschnelle flugkörper entwickelt und auf den selbstgebauten schiffen einsetzt.

spooky schrieb:darüber hinaus läßt sich eine überschall schnelle ashm im prinzip auch mit gun-based ciws (auch mit phalanx) abwehren was auch in diversen tests bewiesen wurde, aber das sind halt nicht die besten mittel dafür. deshalb setzt man (völlig zurecht) auf ram.

spooky schrieb:im umkehrschluss könnte ich ja auch behaupten russland kann garkeine sea skimmers abschießen denn bei kashtan-m wird als mindesthöhe z.b. 5 m angegeben. was ist denn nun wenn die ashm nur 2m oder gar 1m hoch fliegt? (link)

spooky schrieb:die thematik ist nicht so einfach, das man sagen könnte je schneller eine ashm, desto besser. von daher sehe ich halt keine gründe, die zwingend zur entwicklung überschallschneller ashm führen.

spooky schrieb:ich glaube nicht das ich die sache einseitig betrachte, ich würde es ehr realistisch nennen. sicherlich haben ssk's vorteile und die liegen ganz klar in der verteidigung eines begrenzten (möglichst noch litoralen) gebietes gegen eindringende angreifer. das würde bei der us-navy aber allenfalls auf den sonderfall china/taiwan zutreffen (gesetzt den fall man wäre überhaupt rechtzeitig vor ort und hätte den willen eingreifen zu wollen).

spooky schrieb:darüber hinaus würde man mit ssk's, die im stückpreis vermutlich min. bei 700 oder 800 mio $ liegen ja nur die mittel z.b. zum bau von ssn's weiter schmählern. wenn man dann 5 virginia ssn's gegen 10 oder 14 ssk's tauscht hat die us-navy nur verloren (obwohl die anzahl der schiffe auf dem papier gestiegen ist).

spooky schrieb:das sind aber alles lediglich signatur-reduzierte schiffe. die la fayette klasse hat bei ihrer einführung disbezüglich zwar für aufsehen gesorgt aber nur weil es das bis dato erste schiff mit offensichtlichen merkmalen dieser signatur reduzierung war. das wort "stealth" würde ich da sicherlich nicht in den mund nehmen.

revan schrieb:

Zitat:komm - stell den Amis nicht so ein schlechtes Zeugnis aus; die USA sind allen anderen - auch den Russen - um Jahre voraus, und haben auch in der Stückzahl mehr im Einsatz als die Russen (ganz egal ob Du Flugzeuge oder Panzer oder Kriegsschiffe nimmst).

Die Russen haben Zwei biss Fier mall so viele Panzer und gepanzerte Fahrzeuge wie die USA .....

revan schrieb:....
Erstens geht es hier nicht um eine direkte Bedrohung der USA die habe ich ja in Atomwaffen Trend ja erläutert sondern es geht hier um die Bedrohung von US Verbündeten und US Einflusszonen. Die Russische Panzerarmee bedroht Europa bzw. Ost Europa das nach russischer Meinung ihr traditionelles Einflussgebiet/Vasalen Zone ist.

revan schrieb:Aber weg von Russland und hin zu den USA da US Streitkräfte Tread, die USA ist dank der hervorragenden Geostrategischen Lage nicht von Invasion sondern nur durch Raketen Angriffe(Atomschlang Seitens Russland, China, Iran und Nord Korea) und in Zukunft durch Luftangriffe (China) bedroht.

revan schrieb:Zwar ist die Bedrohung für das Heimatland biss auf die beschriebenen Szenarien rein Asymmetrisch solange die USA die führende Seemacht ist doch sind dafür die US Einflussgebiete und Verbündeten um so mehr direkt bedroht. Die US Interessen liegen daher klar darin die Seemacht und die Luftüberlegenheit zu behalten und ausbauen um zum einen die Stabilität und den Frieden am Gelben Mehr in der Taiwan Straße und auf der koreanischen Halbinsel zu erhalten.

revan schrieb:Desweitern die Energie Versorgung zu sichern was überhaupt das aller wichtigste ist sprich die uneingeschränkte See und Luftüberlegenheit in Nahen Osten zu behalten und zu verhindern das Radikal Islamische Kräfte die Macht übernehmen. Desweiteren bestehen Bündnisverpflichtungen in Europa und gegenüber Israel und überhaupt die Verpflichtungen die sich als Führer der westlichen Zivilisation ergeben.

revan schrieb:In Globalen Ringen um Vorherschaft und der Kontrolle über die Rochstoffe mag die USA jetzt noch gut aufgestellt sein in Vergleich zum Europäischen Hühnerstall wo jedes Land die eigenen Interessen verfolgt doch die Konkurrenz ist zahlreich und holt schnell auf.

revan schrieb:Schon bald kann es gut sein das China das Gleichgewicht der Macht in Gelben Meer zu seinen Gunsten kippt, dank intelligenter Asymmetrischer Rüstung und der Schwäche der USA.

revan schrieb:In Nahen Osten ist die Gefahr eines Nuklearbewaffneten Irans in Absehbarer Nähe,

revan schrieb:genau wie die Gefahr durch Islamisten in Saudi Arabien steigt

revan schrieb:man kann ruhig sagen das 50% des Öl das damit die Lebensader der Zivilisation in akuter Gefahr ist und dank den Russen steigt diese da dieser jeden Dritte Welts Diktator mit Waffen beliefert.

revan schrieb:Zugleich ist in Neoimperialen Russland wieder ein unberechenbarer Gegenspieler wiederauferstanden der mehr oder weniger dabei ist Europa zu seine Einflusszone zu machen und Feinden wie den Iran, Venezuela und Nord Korea wenn nicht durch Waffen dann durch Blockade des Sicherheitsrates hilft.

revan schrieb:Die Welt wird in den kommenden Jahren auch immer unangenehmer und gefährlicher werden da die Pax Americana mit den zunehmenden Machtverlust der US ein Ende finden wird. Die USA sind dabei ihre Führung gegen perfide Despoten und Macht gierige Autokraten einzubüßen und Europa ist schwach und eher ein Opfer eben dieser (z.b Russland,Iran) und ein Klotz am Bein als ein Partner der bereit währe Lasten gemeinsam zu schultern oder Verantwortung zu übernehmen.

revan schrieb:Ohne jetzt weiter auf Geopolitische Gegebenheiten und der negativen Entwicklung der Welt (Niedergang der Westlichen Zivilisation Aufstieg der Diktaturen und Einzug der Anarchie) einzugehen ist es Fakt das die US Streitkräfte in einen miserablen Zustand in Vergleich zu 1991 sind und stark abgebaut haben wehrend die Feinde zulegeten. Misswirtschaft und die Naive Selbstgefälligkeit der Clinton Jahre wie auch die Inkompetenz der Busch Administration haben zu dieser Lage geführt und der Trend setzt sich fort.

revan schrieb:Was China angeht so liegt hier das Problem wo ganz anders zwar hat man hier auf überschall FKs aus eigener Fabrikation verzichtet zu mahl diese Technik auch sehr schwer zu beherrschen ist. Doch hat China dafür etwas geschafft was des Sovjet Traum immer gewesen ist und er nie realisieren konnte und zwar mit der DF21 die erste ASBM der Welt gebaut. Eine Waffe die man nur theoretisch mit ABM Systemen wie SM3 bekämpfen könnte. Man muss sich nur mal vorstellen das man es hier mit einen Geschoss zu tuchen hat das mit über 20.000 Kilometer pro Stunde von Himmel herabgestürzt kommt. Man kann sowas als die ultimative asymmetrische Antwort auf einer Trägergruppe sähen, selbst wen die Technik unvollkommen ist da noch erste Generation ist damit eine Basis gelegt worden.

Zitat:Es währe eine herrliche Vorstellung aber solche Idiotie kann man keinen zutrauen vieleicht den US Ingenieuren (Schertz) den Russen bestimmt nicht.

Zitat:Ich sehe aber berechtigte Gründe, immer bessere Sensoren und Radare und immer bessere Verteidigungssysteme. Wenn es dich interessiert man versucht tatsächlich auch auf US Seite ein Hyperschall FK zu bauen da man den Rückstand in der Fk Technik erkannt hat aber die Sache verläuft mehr oder weniger in Sande. Da zum einender Rückstand des Westen auf diesen Gebiet über 30 Jahre beträgt und man High End Systeme wie Hyperschall FKs kaum an beschränkte Bürokraten wie Gates vorbei bekommen kann.

Zitat:Die USA hat desweiteren den Vorteil rund um die Welt Marine Basen zu unterhalten was SSKs begünstigen würde und die Abschreckungen gerade gegenüber China signifikant steigern würde.

Zitat:Letztendlich wird die USA nicht bzw. noch nicht in Blue Water Bereich herausgefordert sondern in Küsten Nahen Gewässern gerade von China in der Taiwan Straße oder in Gelben Meer vor Japan. SSN sind zwar Tool für den Globalen Einsatz und haben ihre Vorteile was ich auch nicht bestreite doch sind sie leider extrem teuer und in den Momentan Denkbaren kriegen Symmetrischen Kriegen nicht ideal. Mit der alten SSN Flotte der Reagan Zeit möge es egal gewesen sein doch mit der kleinen Flotte von jetzt währe man an Neuralgischen Punkt nummerisch wie Technisch unterlegen. China hat eine rissige Flotte na SSKs und die sind wen sind in Litoralen Gewässer überlegen. Die Virginia hat nämlich wie alle SSN den Nachteil des Atomreaktors und des damit verbundenen Kühlsystems das zwangsläufig Geräusche erzeugt ein modernes SSK tut dies nicht.

Zitat:Verglichen mit den Brukes ist das eine ganze Menge, zwar existieren keine Daten doch kann man schlussfolgern anhand der Aufbauten das Stealth kaum eine Rolle gespielt hat bei den Brukes.

revan schrieb:Doch hat China dafür etwas geschafft was des Sovjet Traum immer gewesen ist und er nie realisieren konnte und zwar mit der DF21 die erste ASBM der Welt gebaut.

Zitat:Nach Quintus haben die Russen ca. 10.000 Panzer in Einsatz die USA an die 5000 in Einsatz und wohl 6000 insgesamt. Ein Land wie Deutschland hat 350 in Einsatz obgleich eine drei mall größere Wirtschaft besitzt. Mit den was noch auf Lager sein soll dürften es mit Panzerkampfwagen über 20.000 sein, auch wenn das fast alles Sowjetisches Erbe ist die USA hat seit 1993 kein einzigen Panzer mehr in eigenen Diensten gestellt.

Kosmos schrieb:Ein einfacher Soldat wird wohl kaum 600 Dollar in Monat Verdienen das währen dann ca. 20200 Rubel ziemlich viel für einen Erbsenzähler.

Zitat:Was ein großer Vorteil ist so hat man immer ein gewaltige Reserve an Kanonenfutter und Waffen gibt es auch mehr als genug . Bei den USA gibt es keine Reserve in Millionenstärke und die Wehrpflicht kann man auch kaum wieder auf die schnelle einführen.

Zitat:Was auch daran liegt das wohl keiner in die Armee will um missbraucht zu werden oder der Lohn nicht so Recht stimmt. Entscheidend ist aber eher die Tatsache das Russland gar keine Berufsarmee will bzw. das Militär keine Berufsarmee haben mag, wiederspricht ja der Sowjetischen Doktrinen West Europa mit 30 Millionen Erbsenzähler wegzufegen. Ich will damit nur sagen das es auch ganz andere Gründe haben kann das die Wehrpflicht einfach nicht abgeschafft ist obgleich das seit Jahren angekündigt wurde.

Zitat:In Militär sehr wohl, eine Armee ist zum kämpfen da nicht um gut aus zu sehen auf den Schlachtfeld interessiert es niemanden mehr ob der Soldat der Kämpft ein schicken Wagen fährt oder drei ausgewogene Mahlzeiten mit Dessert bekommen hat oder ob er eine Lada fährt oder mit einer Mahlzeit auskommen muss und wie eine Ratte in einen Kalten Plattenbau lebt. In Kampf zählen all diese Dinge nicht sondern die Ausrüstung die Entschlossenheit und der Nachschub wie auch die Ausbildung des Soldaten. Genau genommen ist der russische Soldat da Entbehrungen gewohnt in Kampf signifikant in Vorteil da er nicht unter Belastung aufgibt oder seine Moral zusammenbricht wenn es mal keine drei warme Mahlzeiten gibt.

Zitat:Würde man eine US Division drei Monate unter Russischen Bedingungen halten, sprich unter der russischen Armee Lebensqualität würde sie fast komplett den Dienst quittieren. Ich bin in keinster Weise von unserer (Us Truppen) überzeugt sicherlich mag ich so unpatriotisch gelten, doch ich denke ich bin da in Recht. Die Geschichte zeigt das meist die primitive Kulturen über weit fortgeschrittene Zivilisation obsiegen weil diese aufgrund des zivilisatorischen Levels den Krieg nicht in selben Masse beherrschen wie weniger entwickelte.

Zitat:Aus dieser Situation kann man wohl kaum etwas sagen, es kann genau so gut eine russischen Helden Geschichte von tapfer kämpfenden Kommandeur sein der am vorderster Front mit seinen Männern sein Leben riskiert. So was macht sich immer besser als die Geschichte von den Heldenhaften Kaffeetrinkern in Kommandobunker.

Zitat:Dagegen hat man in Kaukasus Krieg gesehen, wie eine Armee (Georgische) die noch vor wenige Wochen mit den USMC trainiert hatte und nach US Taktik kämpfte und gut ausgerüstet war wenn auch klein. Beim ersten Kontakt mit den vermeidlich schlechten russischen Soldaten zusammenbrach und panisch die Flucht ergriff und in nur 5 Tagen Kampfunfähig war und das gegen eine der schlechter ausgerüsteten Russischen Armeen.

Zitat:Die meisten Russischen Flugzeuge sind um Zehn Jahre neuer als die der USA, unglaublich aber war obgleich Der US Militär Haushalt in abstrakten Zahlen 10 mall so groß ist.

Zitat:FACTBOX-Major weapon changes in 2010 U.S. defense budget


WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday sent Congress a fiscal 2010 budget plan that shifts funding to focus more on irregular warfare and take better care of troops, while cutting back or canceling several major weapons programs.

Some of the recommendations, which must still be approved by Congress, call for:

- Zero funding for an alternate engine being developed by General Electric Co (GE.N) and Rolls-Royce Group Plc (RR.L) for the F-35 fighter jet, a project initiated by Congress in 1996. The program has already received $2.5 billion in funding from Congress despite repeated Pentagon attempts at cancellation.

- Termination of the VH-71 presidential helicopter program being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and its partner AgustaWestland, a unit of Italy's Finmeccanica SpA (SIFI.MI), a program that had threatened to double in cost to over $13 billion.

- Cancellation of a $15 billion Air Force competition for new Air Force combat search and rescue helicopters while military requirements are studied. Lockheed, Boeing Co (BA.N), and Sikorsky Aircraft, part of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), have been competing for the work for several years.

Instead, the Air Force proposed spending $90 million for 2 HH-60M Pave Hawk helicopters built by Sikorsky to replenish its current search and rescue helicopter fleet.

- Cancellation of $87 billion in funding for the ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization program, a program run by Boeing and Science Applications International Corp (SAI.N). Army officials also said they would present a proposal for replacement vehicles by early September and seek to renegotiate the terms of the overall FCS contract in the near term.

- Cuts of $1.2 billion in funding from the missile defense program, with the lion's share of the cuts coming from the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system built by Boeing, and the Patriot PAC-3 missile program run by Raytheon Co (RTN.N) and Lockheed.Officials said they also canceled funding for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor being developed by Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N).


- No funding for additional F-22 fighter jets built by Lockheed and Boeing, with the Air Force earmarking $64 million to begin closing the F-22 production line........

Zitat:* Funding cut less than expected
* Program focus shifts to rogue threats
* Funding up for Aegis, THAAD programs (Adds details on funding for specific programs)
WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Thursday it was seeking a $1.2 billion funding cut in missile defense spending for fiscal 2010 and set its budget request for the Missile Defense Agency at $7.8 billion.
The cut was lower than the $1.4 billion reduction initially announced by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Pentagon documents said the program would be restructured to focus on rogue state and theater missile threats.
The Pentagon said it would eliminate an increase in ground-based interceptors in Alaska but called for more research and development funding to improve defense against long-range rogue threats.
The lion's share of the cuts, which need congressional approval, would come from general missile defense activities. That includes the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system built by Boeing Co, including interceptors that had been planned for Alaska.
The Pentagon said it planned to cut funding in that area to $9.3 billion from $10.92 billion a year earlier.


Funding for the Patriot PAC-3 missile program, a program involving Raytheon Co and Lockheed, was slated to drop sharply to $404.4 million from $1.04 billion a year earlier.


Budget documents showed funding for the Aegis ballistic missile defense system built by Lockheed Martin Corp would increase to $1.86 billion in fiscal 2010, up from $1.17 billion in fiscal 2009.


Funding for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, also built by Lockheed, was slated to increase to $1.12 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 from $882 million last year.

Zitat:
Helos, Drones Up, FCS Down for Army


The Army’s 2010 budget request reflects the service’s shift of focus from the battlefields of Iraq to those of Afghanistan, with a heavy emphasis on delivering more rotary wing aviation, aerial drones and from fielding FCS equipped armored brigades to beefing up the combat power of its light infantry.

The Army requested $142 billion in the base budget for 2010 and an additional $83 billion to fund ongoing combat operations in the 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations request, previously known as emergency supplementals. The budget request fully funded the Army’s expansion to 547,400 active duty soldiers.

The massive FCS program is, of course, the hot budget issue when it comes to the Army and with Gates’ declaration that he would cancel the bulk of the program last month, the Army’s modernization strategy will shift from fielding 15 FCS equipped BCTs to building “a versatile mix of networked BCTs that leverage mobility, protection, precision, information and fires in order to be effective across the full spectrum of combat operations,” said Lt, Gen. Edgar Stanton, the services’ budget chief......

Zitat:
Additional 2010 development and procurement highlights include:

• $2.9 billion for further development of the FCS small unmanned ground vehicles, robots, small aerial drones, the information network and the non-line of sight missile system, the FCS spin-outs.
• $738 million for development of the WIN-T information network.
• $1.2 billion for 79 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters.
• $1.06 billion for 36 CH-47F Chinook helicopters, of which 25 will be new builds and 14 remanufactured aircraft.
• $736 million for 36 Sky Warrior drones, the Army variant of the Predator family armed drone.
• $370 million for remanufacture of 8 AH-64 Apaches to the Longbow Block 3 configuration.
• $326 million for buying 54 Lakota Light Utility Helicopter.
• $105 million to buy the C-12 Liberty dual prop plane, a modified King Air 350, for tactical surveillance and ground force overwatch.
• $79 million to buy 704 of the small Raven aerial drone.
• $917 million for 59 Patriot missiles.
• $526 million for Bradley fighting vehicle modifications.
• 478.9 million for Stryker vehicle survivability enhancements, no new vehicles will be bought in 2010 but the production line will be kept “warm.”
• $1.5 billion to buy 10,214 new Humvees.
• $471 million to buy 22 M1A2 SEP tanks and for other Abrams modifications.
• $1.6 billion to buy 5,232 FMTV medium trucks, and $1.4 billion to buy an unspecified quantity of FHTV heavy trucks and trailers.

The withdrawal of Army brigades from Iraq has reduced the demand for reset, the initiative to refit war worn vehicles, down to $11 billion in 2010 from around almost $17 billion three years ago, Stanton said. Included in the OCO funding for battle losses were 4 new Apaches and 4 new Chinook helicopters.

Stanton said the Army is “in the process” of looking at unfunded requirements to respond to a request for the same from Congress. The service has not yet sent its unfunded request to OSD.

Zitat:Navy Fares OK In ‘Reformed’ Budget


It’s a downsized Navy that, save for pirate sniping, is having a hard time grabbing the limelight in a ground-intensive war (sorry, contingency operation) against Islamic extremists.

So, you’ve just got to be ready for the knife when the bean counters try to find money for vehicles and cannons and wonder why you’re spending $2 billion on subs, right?

Well, when the budget finally shook out for 2010, the Navy did pretty well. A few airplanes cut here, a ship or two there, but in the end, the sea service’s top line increased by about $10 billion over 2009 to more than $156 billion, with another kicker of $15.3 billion for “overseas contingency operations” as the new GWOT is called (and most of that money is for Marine Corps vehicles, ammo and personnel).

Navy procurement jumped $5.7 billion to $44.8 billion, while research and development funding slumped $400 after the VH-71 presidential helo was axed......

Zitat:Winners: DDG-51 with a one ship build in 2010 that restarts the line; one SSN-774 and some advanced money kicked in to build 12 Virginia class subs; two TAKE transport ships and another Joint High Speed Vessel; two more STOVL JSFs for a total of 16 funded in 2010; one more C-40A (the admirals will love that); and six P-8A multi-mission aircraft beginning the Lot 1 LRIP buy and 325 new Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System missiles designed to compliment the Hellfire rotor wing missiles.

Losers: DDG1000 one ship killed; LPD-17 no ships in 2010; one Maritime Prepositioning Force (Aviation) ship cancelled for a zero buy in 2010; and one MPF Mobile Landing Platform ship deep sixed for a zero buy; cut in half the number of Super Hornets from 18 to nine purchased in 2010, three MH-60Rs cut to 24, one E-2D cut for two; two KC-130Js cut for a zero buy and four T-6A trainers cut for a 38 aircraft buy and one MQ-8B drone cut for a five Fire Scout buy to match LCS needs.

Zitat:US may rethink cuts in anti-missile funds: Gates

Fort Greely, Alaska (AFP) June 2, 2009
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not ruled out pumping more funds into the nation's anti-missile defense budget if North Korea threatens the United States.

"If there were a launch from a rogue state such as North Korea, I have good confidence that we would be able to deal with it," Gates said Monday during a stopover in Alaska on his way home from a trip to Asia.

Zitat:House committee adds $369M for 12 more F-22s

A late amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill slipped in $369 million for advance procurement of a dozen more F-22 Raptor stealth fighters.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, offered an amendment to the House Armed Services Committee authorization bill that would take the money from a Defense Department environmental clean-up fund to pay for advance procurement for 12 more of the fifth-generation aircraft.

Bishop’s stance is in direct opposition to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who announced in April that the F-22 program would stop at 187 aircraft.

“There is no study or analysis we have been able to see at the committee in support of Secretary Gates’ assertion that 187 aircraft is sufficient to meet future air threats to our homeland a decade from now,” Bishop said during the bill’s mark-up. “To the contrary, Air Force Chief of Staff [Norton] Schwartz has testified in front of our committee in disagreement with the Secretary that he believes that 243 F-22s would represent moderate risk.....

Zitat:Those amendments include:

* A prohibition forbidding the Air Force from retiring 250 aging fighter aircraft.

* A request for the Defense Department to study the sale of the F-22 to Japan.

* A request for a Pentagon study into cost savings to buy new upgraded F-15s, F-16s and F-18s, so-called 4.5-generation fighters. .

Zitat:Pentagon
Kommando gegen Cyberattacken

Von Matthias Rüb, Washington

24. Juni 2009 Der amerikanische Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates hat die Schaffung eines „Cyber Command“ im Pentagon angeordnet. Die Struktur des neuen Kommandos soll bis Oktober geschaffen werden, die volle Einsatzfähigkeit des „Cyber Command“ wird bis Oktober 2010 erwartet.
....

Zitat:26. 06. 2009
Pentagon: Neues Cyberkommando konzentriert sich auf Militärnetzwerk

Das vor kurzem vom US-Verteidigungsministerium genehmigte neue Cyberkommando wird sich laut dem Pentagon auf die Militärnetzwerke konzentrieren. Verteidigung, Schutz und Betrieb des Computernetzwerks des Ministeriums sollen besser koordiniert werden.
...

Zitat:.......MARKUP HIGHLIGHTS

This year’s bill includes important bipartisan legislation addressing detainees. The legislation provides new language for the Military Commissions Act to address a series of issues including the use of coerced testimony and hearsay evidence in a manner intended to achieve greater balance, ensure that convictions can be upheld on appeal, and improve the credibility of the military commissions system.

The Senate Armed Services Committee observed the following seven priorities to guide its work on the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization bill:

1. Provides fair compensation and first rate health care, addresses the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured, and improves the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families.

· Authorizes $163.5 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, death benefits, permanent change of station moves, and health care.

· Authorizes a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise, 0.5 percent above the budget request and the annual rise in the Employment Cost Index.

· Authorizes fiscal year 2010 active-duty end strengths for the Army of 547,400; the Marine Corps, 202,100; the Air Force, 331,700; and the Navy, 328,800.

· Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army’s active-duty end strength by 30,000 above 2010 levels during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 if sufficient funding is requested in the budgets for those fiscal years.

· Requires the establishment of a task force to assess the effectiveness of the policies and programs developed to assist and support the care, management, and transition of recovering wounded, ill, and injured service members.

· Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan by September 30, 2013 to increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel of DOD and to consider the feasibility of additional officer and enlisted specialties as behavioral health counselors.

· Increases the authorization for the Homeowners Assistance Program by $350 million. This program was recently enhanced by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5) and now provides relief to homeowners who are military services members, wounded warriors, surviving spouses, and defense civilian employees who are forced to relocate because of Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or permanent change of station orders.

· Authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Navy to operate jointly the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago and Great Lakes, Illinois.

· Extends eligibility for TRICARE Standard to gray area retirees.

2. Provides our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection), and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations.

· Provides $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Fund, including an increase of $1.2 billion above the President’s budget request for MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV), which will be deployed to Afghanistan.

· Provides $179 million for Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). This unfunded requirement was identified by the Army Chief of Staff.

· Provides full funding at the budget request level for most programs, including: Carrier Replacement Program: Virginia-class submarine; DDG-1000; DDG-51; Littoral Combat Ship (LCS); V-22; and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.

· Provides $1.75 billion for buying seven F-22A aircraft, rather than terminating the production program as requested by the Department.

· Provides an additional $560 million to buy 18 F/A-18E/F aircraft, rather than nine aircraft as requested, and authorizes the full request for 22 EA-18G aircraft.

· Provides $438.9 million to continue development of the F136 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine.

3. Enhances the capability of the armed forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations and applies the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan, as appropriate.

· Funds fully the President’s budget request for U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), and adds $131.7 million for unfunded requirements identified by the Commander of USSOCOM.

· Provides the Administration’s full request for nearly $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.

· Provides significant funding for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Iraq and Afghanistan to enable Commanders to fund quickly humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects and authorizes using CERP funds to support the Afghanistan National Solidarity Program to promote Afghan-led local development.

· Clarifies that the Department’s “train and equip” authority allows efforts to build the capacity of coalition partners in Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct stabilization operations and special operations.

· Establishes conditions for DOD’s use of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, to be resourced with up to $700 million transferred from the State Department, to build the capacity of the Pakistan Frontier Corps and Pakistan Army to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

· Extends for one year the authority for the DOD to support State Department programs for security and stabilization assistance.

4. Improves the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

· Provides full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) in the Overseas Contingency Operations component of the budget request.

· Provides an additional $20 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) and limited additional authorities to the CTR program and the Nonproliferation Program at DOE to utilize funding notwithstanding any other provision of law.

· Funds fully the President’s $1.57 billion budget request for Chemical and Biological Defense programs.

· Adds $50 million for a mobile maritime sensor development program to provide options for the Navy in meeting its sea-based missile defense requirements.

· Requires preparation of an interagency plan for nuclear forensics and attribution.

· Authorizes budget request for the addition of $700 million to field additional THAAD and Standard Missile-3 theater missile defense systems.

· Authorizes budget request for the addition of $200 million for conversion of six additional Aegis ships for missile defense capabilities.

5. Seeks to reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions.

· Fully funds readiness and depot maintenance programs as requested to ensure that forces preparing to deploy are trained and their equipment is ready.

· Adds $16 million for tactical gear and clothing upgrades to the Army and Marine Corps.

Adds $250 million for construction projects for the National Guard and Reserves.

Adds $25 million for the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative to enhance funding of priority projects to protect critical mission training sites by preventing or reducing encroachment through the creation of compatible-use buffer zones.

6. Terminates troubled programs and activities, improves efficiencies, and applies the savings to higher-priority programs.

· Future Combat System Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV)—Reallocates $323.6 million of excess termination liability funds to other Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) efforts in support of a new ground combat vehicle program including vehicle modernization and survivability research, advanced tank armament systems, medium and heavy tactical vehicle development, and combat vehicle manufacturing technology.

· Future Combat System Non-Line of Sight-Cannon (NLOS-C)—Reallocates $58.2 million of excess termination liability to the Paladin Integration Management (PIM) program to accelerate the upgrade and modernization of the M109A6 Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer that will increase the Paladin’s performance and reliability, reduce life cycle costs, and address electronic obsolescence issues to meet the Army’s needs to 2050.

Reduces funding by $235 million for facilities at Army installations now not required because of the reduction in Army BCTs from 48 to 45.

Reduces funding by $270 million for Navy construction on Guam that has not yet been fully justified.

· Reduces $209.5 million for C-130 avionics modernization program (AMP) due to delays in beginning the production program.

· Reduces funding for one of two T-AKE auxiliary ships (-$400.0 million) in the budget request, pending Quadrennial Defense Review of the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) requirements.

· Reduces funding for procurement of UH-1/AH-1 Marine Corps helicopters by $282.9 million to keep production at the fiscal year 2009 level.

· Provides authority for temporary reduction in aircraft carrier force levels, as requested by DOD. Otherwise, the Navy would have had to spend more than $1 billion to extend the service life of USS Enterprise.

· Terminates the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program, which had significant technical challenges and was not consistent with the Secretary’s missile defense policy guidance.

· Terminates the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) program, which had serious technology, affordability, and operational problems.

· Cancels the second Airborne Laser (ABL), and refocuses the ABL program as a technology research effort. The ABL had significant affordability and technology problems and the program’s proposed operational role was highly questionable.

7. Ensures aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

· Requires the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) to conduct an assessment of the technological maturity and integration risks of Army modernization programs.

· Enhances the ability of the DOD Inspector General (IG) to conduct audits and investigations by authorizing the IG to subpoena witnesses to provide testimony, subject to the approval of the Department of Justice.

· Reduces costs incurred to acquire and store unneeded inventory by requiring DOD to develop a comprehensive plan to address longstanding problems in its inventory management systems.

· Addresses abusive sole-source contracts by requiring DOD to justify all sole-source contract awards in excess of $20 million in value.

· Requires that DOD treat the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) as a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP).

· Requires that the Navy conduct certain analyses before committing any funds to buy a future surface combatant after fiscal year 2011.

· Improves DOD financial management by requiring the Department to engage in business process reengineering before acquiring new information technology systems and submit regular reports on its progress toward auditable financial statements.

· Places a moratorium on public-private competitions under OMB Circular A-76 until DOD complies with an existing statutory requirement to develop an inventory of activities performed by service contractors that is needed for DOD to manage its service contractors, plan for its civilian employee workforce, and identify functions that should be subject to public-private competition.

· Directs Government Accountability Office to oversee implementation of the Environmental Management American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).

A full summary of the bill is available at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://armed-services.senate.gov/press.htm">http://armed-services.senate.gov/press.htm</a><!-- m -->.

MARKUP DETAILS

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

The Senate Armed Services Committee identified the following seven priorities to guide its work on the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization bill:

1. Provide fair compensation and first-rate health care, address the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured, and improve the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families.

2. Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection), and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations.

3. Enhance the capability of the armed forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan, as appropriate.

4. Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

5. Seek to reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions.

6. Terminate troubled programs and activities, improve efficiencies, and apply the savings to higher-priority programs.

7. Ensure aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

FUNDING LEVELS

The total funding in the bill reported by the committee is $679.8 billion which is slightly below the President’s budget request of $680.2 billion for discretionary programs in the jurisdiction of the committee

The President’s budget request for FY 2010 had two major parts. The first was $550.2 billion in budget authority in the base budget for the DOD and defense programs in DOE.

The second part was $130 billion in budget authority for overseas contingency operations, most of which funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The President’s budget request for national defense, which includes items that are not in the jurisdiction of the committee and mandatory programs, was $693.1 billion as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The committee bill is consistent with this level with the exception that it does not include the administration’s concurrent receipt proposal as the proposed offsets were not in the jurisdiction of the committee.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL

Subcommittee Chairman Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC), continued to focus the Personnel Subcommittee’s attention on improving recruiting and retention, and providing top quality health care, military family readiness and support, and quality of life programs for military and civilian personnel of DOD. The subcommittee included the following funding and legislative provisions:

End Strength

· Authorizes fiscal year 2010 active-duty end strengths for the Army of 547,400; the Marine Corps, 202,100; the Air Force, 331,700; and the Navy, 328,800.

· Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army’s active-duty end strength by 30,000 above 2010 levels during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 if sufficient funding is requested in the budgets for those fiscal years.

· Requires the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to Congress describing the utilization of non-dual status technicians.......

Zitat:
FCS Died For Our Sins

June 26, 2009: On June 23rd, the U.S. Army announced the official cancellation of its FCS (Future Combat Systems). This was a program of next generation weapons, vehicles and other equipment that was going to cost over $160 billion. The cancellation was no surprise. A year ago, the army dropped any pretence of trying to roll out its new FCS stuff as a complete package. That's mainly because the Department of Defense had ordered that FCS items be readied for combat use as soon as possible. The future will arrive piecemeal, as had been actually happening ever since September 11, 2001, and especially since early 2003.

When the Cold War ended in 1991, the army took stock and decided that its future combat vehicles would be smaller and lighter, relying more on missiles, better communications and lots of electronic gadgets. All this was called FCS, and it would change everything. Then came 2003, and three American divisions invaded Iraq and, within three weeks, had seized Baghdad and conquered the country. When the dust had settled, and the battles were carefully examined, it was discovered that the key to rapid victory were the "obsolete" M-1 tanks and M-2 Infantry Fighting Vehicles, doing what they were designed to do.

This didn't faze the FCS developers, for the 20-30 ton FCS vehicles could have done the same thing. The key was being resistant to the RPG rockets, which the M-1 and M-2 were. But that got people thinking. We got all these M-1s and M-2s, and money is tight, and the FCS crowd are asking for over $100 billion to buy new armored vehicles that might not be as effective. Why not just keep upgrading the armor we got, and we know works? This bold idea, reeking of practicality and thrift, received a cool reception. The FCS proponents had spent years of effort to get enough political support for the money to start flowing. And now these retards, with their experience in Iraq, want to face the future with refurbs? The "retards", in the end, had the stronger argument.

The FCS was seen as a breakthrough system. Actually, it's over fifty systems (depending on how you count them), and a lot of technologies that haven't been invented yet. Many in the army were unsure about how FCS would do in combat. This "tried and true" crew responded with an offer to try out each of the new technologies as they become available. Whenever that might be. Eventually, the brass at the Pentagon agreed with this. Meanwhile, FCS faced a more formidable problem than reality checks after 2003; lack of money. Not only was Iraq reminding everyone how well existing armor works, but it sucked up the billions that FCS was hoping to feast on......

Zitat:Reps move to counter proposed F-22, C-17 cuts

Defense companies that once feared big changes with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress can begin to relax.

The House Appropriations subcommittee on defense unveiled its version of the 2010 defense budget Thursday, a spending plan that resurrects some big-ticket weapons that appeared doomed by the budget drafted by President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Under the command of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the subcommittee voted to keep alive the F-22 stealth fighter program, to buy more C-17 transport planes, to double the number of F/A-18 aircraft to be bought for the Navy, even preserve the disastrous VH-71 presidential helicopter program.

Despite resuscitating those programs, the subcommittee managed to trim $3.8 billion from Obama’s spending proposal. The subcommittee’s total is $636.8 billion.

The subcommittee voted in secret to approve the budget July 16, then Murtha offered explanations.

The budget is based on the need to balance short-term needs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against longer-term threats, Murtha told reporters. National military strategy still requires the military to be able to fight two major wars, he said.

Gates has been arguing for greater focus on the wars the military is fighting now and seems most likely to fight in the future, and less emphasis — and less spending — on notional wars that might occur sometime off in the future.

Thus, Gates called for ending production of the F-22 and the C-17, and for canceling the presidential helicopter. He also sought to end the vehicle portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems, cancel the airborne laser and the pull the plug on the Transformational Satellite.

Murtha’s subcommittee is the third of four defense spending panels to overrule the White House and the Pentagon on the F-22. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees did so, as well.

Two panels — House Armed Services and Murtha’s subcommittee — have defied the president on the C-17. So far, only the House appropriators have opted to rescue the VH-71 presidential helicopter.

“These guys have basically said, ‘No, you can’t end any programs.’ ” said Christopher Hellman, a defense budget analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Many lawmakers are loath to cut weapons programs because they are vital to maintaining jobs — and winning votes — at home, he said.

Murtha describes the subcommittee’s motivations differently: “We’re going to spend whatever we need to spend to take care of our troops and their families back home.”

The decision to keep spending on the F-22 — a plane Gates points out has never flown in combat — seems to put the House appropriators on a collision course with Obama. The president has vowed to veto defense bills that include F-22 funding.

But Murtha said, “It won’t come to that. We’ll work it out.” The House defense appropriation subcommittee voted to spend $369 million to buy parts and materials for 12 F-22s to be fully funded later......