USAF CoS Prefers F-35, UAS and NGB. Also say USAF has enough TACAIR capability

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

SpudmanWP 6/1/2009 2:59:14 PM

So what do you think is going to happen as all those F-18's, AV-8Bs, F-16s and F-15s wear out?

Do you think that O, who has reversed his decision on Gitmo, wiretapping, etc when shown the facts, will get rid of a program that his own pet SecDev has said "was essential and needs to accelerated"?

Now I realize that all AC programs are planned based on today's tech and perceived threats. The total orders for the JSF WILL CHANGE at some point in the future. those changes, whether up or down, will not happen in a vacum and will be based on the needs of the day.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/1/2009 3:01:04 PM

Rocky,

My prediction is that the F-35 will be completely funded and the services will get at least 90% and maybe even more F-35's than planned. The Legacy fighters will be retiring and need replacement. The OPTEMPO of the DoD requires force levels to be about what they are for air power in regard to tactical fighters. I think the F-35, unlike the F-22, was built with cost as an important design parameter. If the cost skyrockets too much then Lockheed has failed to meet one of the most fundamental requirements for the platform. I think they understand the implications enough to keep it in check. The F-22 and B-2 on the other hand were built with the Cold War mentality of money is no object. They were also developed in the Black which makes cost higher and when revealed hits hard with sticker shock. In retrospect, I also agree with cutting B-2 numbers. It's a great bomber, but it's not affordable and maintenance sucks. This didn't fit well with the post Cold War peace dividend. Remember, you mention Dick Cheney, but it was he who started cutting Both Raptor and Spirit. The next few SecDefs simply increased those cuts as they saw the threats both aircraft were designed for change.

The threats the F-35 are designed to confront have not changed as much however. We will continue to engage in OIF and OEF. And there are no less than half a dozen other failed-rogue state scenarios that could pop up next decade. The F-35 will have plenty of work.

The only way I see the F-35 getting cut, is if the Unmanned Aircraft technological progress really starts to take off. Because of built in institutional resistance, there will be a hesitancy to use these assets to their full potential. So I think the first half of next decade will be more of a look, see what I can do. And then as we go through the later half, the UAS will take even more responsibility and the old thinking will retire and die out. Officers and NCOs who have participated in the GWOT will and other 21st century conflicts will start to take more influence and legacy thinking dead weight will go extinct. Depending on how far the UAS are developed, it's quite possible that in the beginning of the 2020's, F-35 procurement is affected. A LOT OF WHAT MEN DO NOW in the cockpit can be done by machine. It's just cumbersome and not fully developed or refined yet. That's all going to change soon.

So Rocky, in conclusion, I'd answer that current wars and old aircraft will limit any desire Obama may or may not have to cut the F-35. Opportunities to use UAVs as substitutes wont be available in numbers until well after Obama leaves office in 2016-2017 if he gets a second term. So for now, I'd say the F-35 is a relatively sure bet.

-DA

Quote Reply

warpig 6/1/2009 9:18:05 PM

You are neither a bully nor an asshole and this site would lose a VERY valuable poster if you let others get to you. I have been an avid reader of this forum and others and unlike Rocky Mountain Climber, I look foward to threads you are on. Let Darth be Darth he will be judged based on his arguments and all you need to do is point out the facts. Suggestion-state what you need to state without using anything resembling anger. Like Rocky mtn climber said, you are great at research and can state a position based on cold hard logic and fact. Do that and that alone and your effectivness will increase. I think we need more F22's based on the LOGIC I have seen from numerous sources including yours.

Well, with some time to think about it, I regret making such a harsh judgement. However, aside from those first couple words, the above poster is saying in spirit pretty much the same thing everyone else has been saying (probably even DA)--if you could lose your rude treatment of posters you don't agree with. And I suggest to you that, while you may claim you only dispense facts and clearly-labeled opinions and you may have claimed (I don't particularly recall if you have or not) or may think that you are not unjustifibly rude, when so many posters can see that you are then maybe there is something in your style that you can not see entirely clearly for yourself.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/1/2009 11:24:21 PM

There is no reason two people can't post on a message board and not maintain mutual respect. I KNOW Warpig and I disagree on some very fundamental issues. I KNOW Rocky and I disagree on the current USG. There are many others I disagree with as well. Heck, look as BW and FS positions on French aircraft. We all manage to do this without getting personal. That's something we all need to self-enforce. Debating someone I disagree with is actually very fun. It's a give and take situation where at the end we all learn something. Allowing it to get personal completely takes the fun out of this.

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 6/1/2009 11:29:50 PM

Following up to my last post. The total development cost of the F136 engine is $2.4 billion. The contract was awarded in '05 and scheduled to end in 2013, so an annual cost of $300 million.

Three hundred million dollars per year is the difference between success and failure of a tactical aircraft project that has completed less than 5% of its flight testing? And people are still optimistic about this?

No reason not to be. The F-35 is not an optional procurement decision at this point. Short of a critical design flaw, nothing is going to stop the F-35 from being procured to replace the F-Teens.

-DA

There is a difference between optimism and reality Darth. Along the way this may turn out to be a much bigger battle than we are seeing with the F-22. If you think about it, post Reagan what major weapons program has come in at budget and not been drastically cut? When do the international partners become fed up with the delays and cost increases? I would go as far as to say Rocky's prediction is much more realistic than optimistically saying we get anything close to 2500.

We are victims of our own design. Never settling on 2nd best no matter what the cost is finally starting to catch up with us. Our military deserves the best but until the American public says no to the top dollar free agent mentality, we continue to spend more money, accrue debt and eventually will implode.

Quote Reply

mustang22 6/2/2009 12:08:21 AM

-DA

Exactly,

It took post Judgement Day HK's for us to agree on the right amount of F-22's, give it 3 weeks and will be talking about Decepticons!!

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/2/2009 12:12:46 AM

Disagree for the reasons I previously stated...

...In my opinion, the reason major weapons procurement has been cut so much is the same as it has always been between wars. The Cold War being no exception. Most of the major weapons systems in service today were designed to deal with the Soviets. When they went away, they took with them the need for a large percentage of these weapons. The Soviets were a massively stabilizing force. In there absence the world reorganized itself to fill the void they left behind. The new threats that emerged are not seeking to challenge us force of force. As bad as people wanted to make the PRC into the USSR it just didn't turn out that way. So as the nature of the threat changed, so too did the requirement for weapons systems. One of the most telling examples of that are the wars we are in now and the PacRim which our legacy forces can fight in, but under less than ideal circumstances as opposed to the European requirements they were designed for.

Also, defense spending is not sacrosanct. Like all areas of government, spending on and within the DoD must be kept reasonable, managed properly and balanced against the rest of the budget.

-DA

Quote Reply

LB Clarity 6/2/2009 1:32:55 AM

So are you now back to saying that UCAVs can do air superiority missions? What "job" does the UCAV allow our other manned aircraft to perform?

Talking about UCAVs doing primary air to air within a decade is wishful thinking. An aircraft like the F-22 with immense altitude and speed advantages conveys these advantages directly into air to air missile range. An air superiority UCAV requires either similar advantages or the virtue of being relatively inexpensive in order to be expendable and no air superiority UCAV with advanced radar and other systems is going to be inexpensive.

All of this leaves aside the not insignificant redundancy of having a man in the cockpit when your comms are jammed are otherwise interfered with. We're decades away from an AI doing air to air.

The nice little picture posted shows future UCAVs performing every mission possible other than air superiority. What decade this happens is an open question. What is not is clearly the lowered need for F-35's since eventually UCAVs perform all F-35 missions. The case for more F-22's and less F-35s could not be made more clearly. Except of course if one simply compares costs.

Those UCAV's are creating the conditions that will allow MUCH SHORTER RANGED/ENDURANCE fighters to get close enough to do their jobs. This is something we can do in the next decade. MUST DO. Especially in the case of the N-UCAS. Which are not tied to vulnerable fixed land bases. The same is true of the Super Hornet, Hornet, Harrier, Growler and F-35B/C. N-UCAS combined with a TLAM, NGB and legacy strategic bombers with associated support assets such as USAF tankers/Manned-Unmanned ISR will provide the bulk of the firepower necessary to sustain continuous air operations in the absence of land bases which would be under attack or threat of attack by conventional and/or WMD. We learned this in the early days of OEF.

The DoD has been prodded in the right direction. Once the senior leadership adjust and is replaced with todays officers and NCO's things will accelerate rapidly as a result of lessons we learned. Once industry completes the refocusing on 21st century style warfare the pace will pick up even more.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Three weeks and two days after the poster finally admitted he didn't know what he was discussing and we are back to the same thing? 6/2/2009 2:34:37 AM

Sigh. UASs can recon and some can strike but as of yet, NONE can fight.

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica LB Reply 6/2/2009 3:52:47 AM

So are you now back to saying that UCAVs can do air superiority missions? What "job" does the UCAV allow our other manned aircraft to perform?

Look, LB, if you are sincere and wish to debate this, I'll do so. But if you don't consider it a valid concept, then lets not be coy. I already explained and showed you a UAV doing and air superiority task....a dacade ago. We are well beyond that now. When things like the JDRADM come online, things are going to get very interesting.

It is by no means wishful thinking. In fact it's naive to think it can't be done. UAVs can be made extremely cheap compared to manned platforms. The only reason you wont see dedicated air to air UCAVs next decade is the same reason why you see so few Raptors. There just isn't a whole hell of a lot to shoot at up there, the long range ISR/Strike UCAVs stealth minimize the likelihood of interception and as the F-35 and DAS demonstrate, high performance maneuverability isn't and speed are no longer absolute necessities. If you think this is needed to accurately put an AMRAAM like missile into a target then ask yourself how fast this is going and how many Gs it pulls...

...This is no problem for even a slug with Reapers performance. But it will be more than that. Next decades UCAVs will be multi mission capable craft and will employ air to air weapons....

All of this leaves aside the not insignificant redundancy of having a man in the cockpit when your comms are jammed are otherwise interfered with. We're decades away from an AI doing air to air.

No, actually we are not. Relevant technologies have been demonstrated. We are well beyond that capability. And AI isn't the only way. We have done it via remote...

With regard to Jamming. That works on manned platforms too. Don't fall for the hype here about telemetry and other such $5 words that are rolled out with little or no context. There is ECM and ECCM. Its classic sword and shield. We have the capability to put very secure redundant and reliable communications architectures in place. I've seen it. Again with regard to AI...

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT