Dr Rebecca Grant probably isn't going to get offered a job in the Gates team.
In a strongly worded brief, the respected air power analyst argues that the USAF did have a cogent, established need for another 60 F-22s - but never had a chance to present it before Gates slammed a gag order on all senior officers involved in the budget process.
Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director. Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done. He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process – even to other senior officers in their services.
The result was that no officer could talk about any of the analysis work without defying the Secretary's orders. Grant also points out that if the USAF really had no need for the extra aircraft, service chief Gen. Norton Schwartz could have said so at any time last year - but didn't.
It makes a lot of sense. Recall, too, what Maj Gen Jay Lindell, director for Global Power Programs in the USAF's acquisitions office - and the head of the team responsible for determining the best mix of F-22s and F-35s - said last month at our own Defense Technology and Requirements conference.
Asked about the "optimal ratio" of F-35s to F-22s, Lindell said: "It depends on what we can afford but the studies and analysis show a mix with an increased number of F-22s". The argument rested mainly on the F-22's higher speed and air-to-air capability, translating into fewer aircraft needed to cover a given area: in air-to-air, six F-22s were worth ten F-35s.
Lindell pointed out later that part of the USAF analysis reflected the fact that a 24-aircraft squadron was more efficient than an 18-aircraft squadron, because both have the same test and support equipment and in some cases need the same minimum number of specialist technicians.
So there was a "military case" for more F-22s; but Gates made sure that it was never presented. As Grant concludes: "Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith."
To answer your question, it depends on your overall grand strategy and strategic goals; Gates has one-the Air Force?-clueless.
The Army and Marines currently complain about Air Force pilots not coming low enough to the ground as their Navy counterparts do to provide ground support. The Air Force for the first time decided to add ground support to Red Flag-I wonder why?
The Army and Marines have also complained about the Air Force's lack of responsiveness to their increased needs for UASs, causing the Army to break off forming its own unit.
These examples (and many more I wont mention) shows that the Air Force is once again clueless and shouldn't be left to their Eddie Rickenbacker inclinations.
The Army and Marines have also complained about the Air Force's lack of responsiveness to their increased needs for UASs, causing the Army to break off forming its own unit.
A totally baseless claim.... And...the "low enough" thing is pure BS when you consider most CAS is now done with PGMs from up high and the once in a while strafing run and no-shooting show of force.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123143676
i just don't buy it. the economy and the current deficit will all contribute to the need to cut somewhere. of all the Senator's complaining, the people on the Armed Services Committee have been strangely silent. also Hawk like democrats have been silent as well. Jim Webb is the one canary in the coal mine i was looking for if their was going to be resistance from southern democrats. he's been silent. with the possibility of cuts in other parts of the budget i really do believe dems will get in line. with the thought that further cuts could be rammed forward in the defense budget with opposition to the current plan, i believe that republicans will chill also. i think Obama will get what he wants in this one.