(Luft) Lockheed Martin F-22

[revan]

Also betreff der F18 E/F der DDG51 usw. ich sah schon vor einiger Zeit ein Artikel darüber das diese Programme ebenfalls geschändet werden sollen von unseren geliebten Messias. Auch wenn dies wohl nicht in F22 Bereich gehört so kann es doch Aufschluss darüber geben wie die Einstellung dieser Geisteskranken Administration ist. Ich nehme hier auch kein Blatt mehr vor den Mund betreff dieser Messianischen Person, da für mich so oder so jede Person die an die Atomwaffenfreie Welt glaubt ja sie realisieren will Geistesgestört ist. Da realisiert man eher den real existierenden Kommunismus !:lol:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.militarium.eu/article.aspx?ID=950">http://www.militarium.eu/article.aspx?ID=950</a><!-- m -->

U.S. May Cut 52 Ships From Plan
With the U.S. Navy's new shipbuilding budget still a well-kept secret, information on the service's next 30-year ship construction plan has been hard to come by, and in the hush-hush world of prebudget Washington virtually no knowledgeable official will talk on the record.

But Defense News has obtained details of at least one late-year version of the plan based on an annual shipbuilding budget of $18.9 billion in 2009 dollars. While the totals for some types of ships have risen, overall the 244-ship draft plan buys 52 fewer ships then the plan submitted to Congress a year ago.

While final shipbuilding figures have not been decided and every budget line remains under review, the scheme could provide insight into some behind-the-scenes Pentagon thinking on the Navy's future force structure.

Among the draft plan's highlights is a drastically different profile for surface combatants - the cruisers and destroyers at the center of some of the most controversial changes over the past year. The plan shows less than half the number of new CGX cruisers while adding a new surface ship called the Future Surface Combatant (FSC).

Absent, as expected, are more DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers beyond the three already purchased, and the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class has reappeared in Navy budget plans, although at only three ships. Fewer surface combatants and amphibious ships also would be purchased.

Navy officials would not confirm details of the draft plan, although several sources said this version or one close to it was on the table before the end of 2008. Defense News could not confirm whether the plan survived in this form to be presented to the new Obama administration, although it seems likely that something close to these numbers formed the basis of the 30-year shipbuilding plan now being debated.

"Until our final plan is delivered to Congress, we can't say with fidelity what the accurate numbers are," Lt. Clay Doss, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said Feb. 13.

The late-year plan represents some of the give-and-take between the Navy and officials working for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and although officials would not confirm for the record which budget lines were being debated, two sources said there were significant differences in the number of high-speed ships to be built under a joint Army-Navy program.

Adding to the intrigue, other sources have spoken of an alternative Navy force structure plan prepared by OSD in the late fall, elements of which could appear in this draft plan.

"They cut the total numbers of the plan," said one Capitol Hill source who reviewed the draft. "But the numbers mask a deeper cut - they buy smaller, cheaper ships, not the high-end combatants like aircraft carriers and cruisers."

Another source who reviewed the draft agreed.

"It's pretty clear people are looking for money and ways to get numbers," the source said. "They need to change the complexion of the force structure because they have to say they restored the Navy, and they just can't get there with the prices of ships today."

It is not clear what the target fleet level is for this draft plan. The Navy's current plan is for 313 ships, a number which Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations (CNO), calls a "floor," or the lowest end of what the service needs. Inventory in the draft plan peaks at 336 in 2021, but then falls steadily to 275 by 2039, or less than today's 283-ship Navy.

"It almost looks like the 266-ship plan of a few years ago," said the Capitol Hill source, referring to a time around 2003 when then-CNO Adm. Vern Clark defined the fleet as between a high of 325 ships and a low of 266. Although that lowest number isn't directly reflected in the draft plan, it comes close when the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) line is removed.

The JHSV is a small, relatively cheap vessel built to commercial specifications and being purchased by the Navy for both Army and Navy use. The current plan is for 10 ships - five for each service - and sources report the sea service would like to beef up its total to 15 ships.

Non-Navy sources have been speculating for months that the numbers for the JHSV and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) would be jacked up and form the greater growth element of an expanded fleet plan of as many as 342 ships.

But the draft plan shows no more LCS vessels, although the numbers of ships to be bought in each year through 2019 has changed. The JHSV total grows from the 15 ships reportedly submitted by the Navy to 29 ships in the draft. It is not clear where the 14 additional ships came from, and one source speculated it was from OSD, not the Navy.

Big Cruiser Changes

The changes in the draft plan for the CGX cruiser are perhaps the most jarring. The 2008 plan bought 19 ships, beginning with the first in 2011 and one or two per year from 2013 through 2023. The draft plan shows eight ships, the first coming in 2017 and the rest spaced three years apart through 2038. That would provide a force far short of the requirement of 19 cruisers to replace current ships. A note appended to the draft plan mentions that the cruiser force would dip to 15 ships in 2025 and not recover to current levels until 2070.

The answer to the missing 11 cruisers might be in the Future Surface Combatant line, which totals 18 ships to be bought from 2012 through 2025. The Navy has not yet defined what the FSC is, although Pentagon acquisition chief John Young said on Feb. 5 the ship could be a version of the existing DDG 51-class destroyer, a derivative of the DDG 1000 class, or something else.

Some have speculated that the 18 ships could split at some point into two classes, one being a ship with the DDG 51s Aegis combat system, and another being a so-called "CGX Light" ship derived from the DDG 51 class, but with a more powerful, integrated powerplant and a new Air Missile Defense Radar also being developed for the CGX.

That same line of thought looks at the eight CGXs, perhaps, as representing the nuclear-powered cruiser championed by the House Seapower subcommittee chairman, Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and other advocates. The Navy has not released any price figures for such a ship, but some have estimated it could run as high as $5 billion or $6 billion a copy. At that rate, the ship would be harder to budget for in successive years, and a smaller build rate could result.

Even less clear in the new plan is the impact of costs for the SSBNX ballistic missile submarine replacement program, scheduled to procure its first boat in 2019. In previous 30-year plans, the Navy has not added in costs for the ship, claiming the concept was not mature enough, but the service has been under strong pressure from OSD to do so. The reduced building rate for the cruisers could be a result of that added cost. It might also account for the slower building rate for aircraft carriers, which in the draft plan drops from one ship every four or five years to one every 10 years.

Wenn man derartiges liest, wie das selbst Spot billige Programme wie die F18E/F oder das DDG 51 gestrichen werden, von den gefährlichen Kahlschlag bei den Strategischen Waffne ganz zu schweigen! Rein Historisch betrachtet siecht der Navy Plan so aus wie der Rückzug Großbritanniens von der Weltbühne, mal ein Vergleich Großbritanniens Navy 1960 (U-Boote 48,Träger 9,Kreuzer 6,Zerstöerer 55,Freaggten 84, insgesamt über 200 Kriegsschiffe) und Heute (U-Boote 13, Träger 2, Kreuzer 0, Zerstörer 8,Freaggten 17, insgesamt nur noch 50 Kriegsschiffe). Ich denke die Parallelen sind kaum von der Hand zu weisen ja sie sind frappierend, stechen grade zu ins Auge.



Wenn ich also sowas lese so kann ich mir einfach nicht vorstellen das das F22 Programm vorgeführt wird und das egal wie groß die Unterstützung für das Programm ist selbst Ted Kennedy ist dafür. Der Grund ist einfach der das sowohl Gates dagegen ist wie auch der Linke Extremist an der Spitze für den so oder so Waffen keine Daseinsberechtigung haben.


Betreff des Export der F22 , so ist das was man macht einfach nur eine Schande, dass man treu Verbündete wie Dreck behandelt bzw. ihnen Technik vorenthält und sie mit den F35 Schrott abzuspeisen versucht.

Leider wird es dabei bleiben den wenn man die F22 exportieren würde dann währe das F35 Programm Tod da keiner mehr die F35 haben wollte, auch wenn nur drei F35 Kunden abspringen würden würde dies eine Lawine auslösen die letztendlich das gesamte F35 Programm überrollt.

Having said that ... Der Grund warum dem Pentagon so das Geld ausgeht, ist ja irgendwie auch, dass die USA in zwei Kriege gleichzeitig verwickelt sind, von denen zumindest einer (welcher?) vielleicht nicht die beste Idee der Welt war. Daran haben weder Obama noch Gates Schuld.

@flexi, eigentlich nicht da die Ausgaben für den Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan separat finanziert werden und nicht aus den Verteidigungshaushalt.