Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAF CoS Prefers F-35, UAS and NGB. Also say USAF has enough TACAIR capability
DarthAmerica    5/27/2009 10:45:26 PM
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said increasing production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and developing the next-generation bomber are at the top of his wish list of projects to fund if the service had more money. SOURCE: h*tp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/SCHWARTZ052009.xml&headline=Schwartz%20Wish%20List:%20Boost%20F-35,%20Plan%20NGB Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the Air Force?s $160.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget request May 19, Schwartz said service leaders felt they had enough tactical aircraft capability despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates? plans to halt F-22 Raptor procurement at 187 aircraft. The Air Force chief said the service?s leadership believed it was a ?prudent opportunity to accelerate the retirement of older aircraft.? The FY ?10 budget calls for retiring 250 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, enabling the Air Force to redistribute more than $3.5 billion over the next six years to modernize combat air forces into a ?smaller but more capable force,? Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told lawmakers in joint written testimony. Schwartz did say more money would make it easier and faster to upgrade remaining legacy aircraft and make modifications to the F-22 until the F-35 starts rolling off the line in large numbers. Schwartz said the Air Force would like to see F-35 production boosted to at least 80 aircraft and perhaps as many as 110 per year before the F-16s start retiring in large numbers. Committee members, including Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Rep. John McHugh (N.Y.), the senior Republican on the panel, worried about producing and flying an aircraft while it was still being tested. Donley conceded budget constraints compelled the Air Force to make some difficult calls. If there was more money ?we might have made some different choices,? Schwartz added. But both leaders insisted the Air Force was not short-changing itself. The chief of staff said his wish list also included developing plans for the future long-range strike capability. ?We need, through the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and the NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] to get our secretary of defense comfortable with the parameters of what we propose for that platform.? Gates canceled funding for a next-generation bomber study, which Schwartz said was of concern to the Air Force ?Once we get him comfortable with the parameters ? range, payload, manned, unmanned, nuclear, non-nuclear, low observable, very low observable ? then we need to proceed aggressively with that program.? Schwartz said the Air Force also needs to explore using additional automation in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to reduce manpower. He noted that currently one crew operates a single UAS.
 
Quote    Reply

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
EvilFishy       5/28/2009 3:33:24 AM
This is what I know:
-we have not paid for our F-35s yet.  That money has neither been allocated nor spent.
-we do not have any money left (assuming we do not print more in which case we still cannot buy F-35s in bulk)
 
How are we going to replace our teen series fighters when they go the way of the bone yard?
 
F-35?   With what money?   Congress is now discussing a VAT ontop of a national SALES tax on top of massive carbon tax via Cap and Trade on top of the cut to DOD on top of God only knows what else.
 
Congress does not propose massive taxes because they think new taxes will improve their re-election chances.
Congress proposes and PASSES massive taxes and tax increases because they have spent themselves broker than hell.
 
Can somebody please tell me where the money will come from to allow us to be able to buy the number of F-35s we need to replace the F-15s and F-16s that we are going to lose?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EF Reply   5/28/2009 3:48:21 AM

Can somebody please tell me where the money will come from to allow us to be able to buy the number of F-35s we need to replace the F-15s and F-16s that we are going to lose?


Retiring those older F-teens will pay for about ~25% of it by itself. Other than that the funds will come from where all funding comes from. How congress actually does that funding is really beyond the scope of this.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 3:51:52 AM
5/20/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Following the May 7 roll-out of the fiscal year 2010 budget proposal for the Department of Defense, Air Force officials announced plans to retire legacy fighters to fund a smaller and more capable force and redistribute people for higher priority missions.
 
The Combat Air Forces restructuring plan would accelerate the retirement of approximately 250 aircraft, which includes 112 F-15 Eagles, 134 F-16 fighting Falcons and three A-10 Thunderbolt IIs. This does not include the five fighters previously scheduled for retirement in FY10. 

"We have a strategic window of opportunity to do some important things with fighter aircraft restructuring," said Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley. "By accepting some short-term risk, we can convert our inventory of legacy fighters and F-22 (Raptors) into a smaller, more flexible and lethal bridge to fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 (Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter). We'll also add manpower to capabilities needed now for operations across the spectrum of conflict." 

Under the plan, cost savings of $355 million in FY10 and $3.5 billion over the next five fiscal years would be used to reduce current capability gaps. Air Force officials would invest most of the funds in advanced capability modifications to remaining fighters and bombers. Some would go toward procuring munitions for joint warfighters, including the small diameter bomb, hard-target weapons and the AIM-120D and AIM-9X missiles. The remainder would be dedicated to the procurement or sustainment of critical intelligence capabilities such as the advanced targeting pod as well as enabling technologies for tactical air controllers and special operations forces. 

"We've taken this major step only after a careful assessment of the current threat environment and our current capabilities," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. "Make no mistake, we can't stand still on modernizing our fighter force. The Air Force's advantage over potential adversaries is eroding, and this endangers both air and ground forces alike unless there is a very significant investment in bridge capabilities and fifth-generation aircraft. CAF restructuring gets us there." 

The CAF restructuring plan, which will require appropriate environmental analyses, would enable Air Force officials to use reassignment and retraining programs to move approximately 4,000 manpower authorizations to emerging and priority missions such as manned and unmanned surveillance operations and nuclear deterrence operations. 

This realignment would include the expansion of MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and MC-12 Liberty aircrews; the addition of a fourth active-duty B-52 Stratofortress squadron; and the expansion of Distributed Common Ground System and information processing, exploitation and dissemination capabilities for continued combatant commander support in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other adjustments. 

Secretary Donley and General Schwartz have committed the Air Force to initiatives that will reinvigorate its nuclear enterprise and field 50 unmanned combat air patrols for ongoing operations by FY11. 

"What we're looking for is a force mix that meets the current mission requirements of combatant commanders while providing a capable force to meet tomorrow's challenges," Secretary Donley said.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 4:15:49 AM

---DA---Retiring those older F-teens will pay for about ~25% of it by itself.---

Ok so we retire 1,000 - 2,000 birds to pay for a few hundred F-35s?

---DA---Other than that the funds will come from where all funding comes from.---

Perhaps you should READ what I write before commenting: there are no more funds.

The IRS took in approximately 30% less in revenues than last year.
The Congress, this year alone, is working on a budget deficit of more than $1.5 trillion dollars.
The Congress and Obama officials are publicly floating the idea of a V.A.T. and a national Sales Tax on top of a Cap and Trade tax and last year the Congress held hearings on nationalizing 401ks and IRAs.

Why are they floating these ideas and working on such legislation? They are out of money and the credit card is maxed out.

Tell me, in something other than vagaries, where will the Congress get the funds for all of the F-35s you think we will get?

---DA---How congress actually does that funding is really beyond the scope of this.---

Armatures talk tactics.
Professionals talk logistics.

You have typed many words over how the F-35 will do this and that and blah, blah, blah, but you have YET to address the only REAL IMPORTANT ISSUE: how will be PAY FOR THEM!?

I do not care if the F-35 can fly upside down and destroy a planet while in a Cobra while making toast with no edges on the bread: if you cannot BUY THEM, you cannot ACQUIRE THEM.

So answer this pertinent question please: how will this Congress, which has already slashed the DOD budget and plans on doing so in the future, get the money to pay for F-35s?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 4:45:08 AM
Evil fishy,

A couple of things. First, I'm not interested in debating the vagaries of congressional funding practices. You should post something in the United States board about that. My intent is to discuss this within the context of the United States Air Force and the military decision-making process. When I said retirement of the 250 legacy fighters would pay roughly 25% of the initial joint strike fighter procurement of up to 80, I was referring to the $3.5 billion in savings mentioned in the article. Lastly, the congressional budgeting process, has nothing to do with logistics and the context in which we are speaking.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/28/2009 9:49:41 AM







Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the Air Force?s $160.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget request May 19, Schwartz said service leaders felt they had enough tactical aircraft capability despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates? plans to halt F-22 Raptor procurement at 187 aircraft.







The Air Force chief said the service?s leadership believed it was a ?prudent opportunity to accelerate the retirement of older aircraft.? The FY ?10 budget calls for retiring 250 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, enabling the Air Force to redistribute more than $3.5 billion over the next six years to modernize combat air forces into a ?smaller but more capable force,? Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told lawmakers in joint written testimony.






Anyone know how many A-10s will be left?



They are only retiring 3 A-10's out of the 250 total aircraft AFAIK.




-DA 



Darth,
 
Last I heard there were 356 A-10's still around and all were eventually getting upgraded to A-10C status under the Precision Engagement program along with possible wing replacements to remain in service until 2028. If this has changed I apologize in advance.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 11:27:19 AM
Mustang,

I haven't looked at the overall A-10 strength but what you say makes sense considering that OIF and OEF still represent long term commitments and trends are biased towards the A-10s capabilities. The 3 they are retiring are probably worn out or battle damaged hangar queens.

Just as long as they keep enough to fight in 2018 post Judgement Day Resistance Air Force...;) 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Well I read that and I was not amused.   5/28/2009 11:32:38 AM
A couple of things. First, I'm not interested in debating the vagaries of congressional funding practices. You should post something in the United States board about that. My intent is to discuss this within the context of the United States Air Force and the military decision-making process. When I said retirement of the 250 legacy fighters would pay roughly 25% of the initial joint strike fighter procurement of up to 80, I was referring to the $3.5 billion in savings mentioned in the article. Lastly, the congressional budgeting process, has nothing to do with logistics and the context in which we are speaking.
 
This is what I mean, when I look upon some comments I read with absolute scorn.
 
But let's look at a few preliminaries.
 
When I looked at the Youtube reality iffered of the X-45/X-47 demos I noted the massive telemetry and GCS support required just to fly around TWO robots. I wasn't happy about the three way and four way multiple links I saw from the control van that was necessary to support a two bird flught. Those flights were not that long ago so I don't think much has improved about that MESS.
 
Then there was the Cormorant offering. I am well conversant with the effect of salt water on jet engines and missile aeroshells, so you can imagine how very happy THAT concept made me. I was wondering also at the stupidity of a sub trying to recover an aircraft (noisy procedure as well as complex) in a near coast local situation in shallow water after an enemy has trackbacked the drone to splashdown  An Ohio is HUGE and rather obvious in a near surface condition. One would expect that the LockMart concept bunglers had thought about that, when they pitched this dumb idea to the Navy.
 
Sabre concept is reinventing the wheel with a vengeance. Gee what a neat idea. we'll sell a trihull to the USAF and.....
 
KISS. The geometry of the aeroshell offered is overly complex, large and CLUMSY, and unnecessary to a split conformal pallet UAS. Build it as a boomerang liftbody with a truss box center and be done with it.
 
So much for the "concepts" and why technically they don't work, so let's get back to Congress.
 
To build an aircraft, Congress must fund it. To supply the jet engines, to supply the mechanics, pilots, fuel, AMARC depot parts for the aging air fleet, authorize bases, find and fund the resources and manufacturers, find the endusers, and even the TARGETS, CONGRESS has to decide on money and give permission. Not a dollar is spent without the enabling legislation to allow it..
 
Congress has nothing to do with logistics?
 
 
 
Now then.....................
 
Do we have a new definition for that which is obtuse, and ignorant of the actual procurement process? Do we have a new definition of ignorant as in "no concept as to how things actually work in the US government"?
 

Dodd Rallies to Union's Side to Oppose F-22 Budget Cuts

The Connecticut Democrat met Thursday with the Hartford chapter of the machinists' union that would take a big hit under Defense Secretary Robert Gates' call to halt production of the F-22 jet. 

Facing a potentially tough election in 2010, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd rallied Thursday to the side of union members in his state whose jobs are at risk under an Obama administration budget proposal. 

"I'm here today to tell you that I'll do everything I can ... to make our case to our colleagues. That is where the final defense will be for this program," Dodd told members of the Hartford chapter of the International Association of Machinists. 

The group would take a big hit under Defense Secretary Robert Gates' budget proposal, which calls for halting production of the F-22 jet -- the jet's engines are made in Connecticut. 

But Dodd, along with Connecticut Rep. John Larson, met with union members Thursday to assure them they'd battle Gates over the issue. Dodd has fought before to save the F-22 progra
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/28/2009 1:06:06 PM

Mustang,




I haven't looked at the overall A-10 strength but what you say makes sense considering that OIF and OEF still represent long term commitments and trends are biased towards the A-10s capabilities. The 3 they are retiring are probably worn out or battle damaged hangar queens.




Just as long as they keep enough to fight in 2018 post Judgement Day Resistance Air Force...;) 




-DA 

Hopefully they will get more powerful engines so they can outrun the HK's!!
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    ATTN: SysOP   5/28/2009 1:38:13 PM

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but as I've said repeatedly about thos man, he's no more qualified to give an HONEST argument than some of the posters here are qualified to tell me about why 183 F-22s are enough to provode an air defense when I know 283 is more like the nimber needed. As said before, The F-22 is NOT IDEAL as a missile shover and PACRIM patroller, bit it is the BEST we have now building. Since I am a pessimist, and I don't belueve we will fund the $50 billion dollar new ten hour bomber and the $50 billion  dollar UAS program, I tend to believe that we face a  "bird in the hand situation" where we fund what we can afford and what I know will work ubtil the munitions come on line that make nonsense of our enemues' plans and not pie in the sky dreams and delusions.

There will be pressure to cut Sparkie to save money, as soon as the Raptor dies. Bet on THAT.
Herald


Herald,
 
As DJim, JFKY, Warpig, Rocky and SysOps have told you, get this stupid who's qualified bullcrap out of our threads. YOU ARE DISQUALIFYING YOURSELF by virtue of the fact that you seem to be unable to follow the rules here. Following SP's posted forum rules qualifies anybody to post whatever the hell they want. In fact, the fact that you suggested things as ignorant to reality as giving civilian merchant ships missiles and rockets to illegally shoot at Somali Fishermen is all the proof anybody needs to justify that you do not understand as much about military affairs as you think you do. You not knowing that touch screens are in cockpits of fighters suggest that your knowledge of fighters and aircraft is just as wanting as anyone else. You not knowing that the MSR DOES NOT go through Basra shows that you don't know as much as you think you do about logistics. Your inability to respect forum rules or admit to being wrong is a character flaw as well. Finally, your continuous vitriol and insulting that you heap on others and the POTUS/SecDef clearly demonstrate that it it completely impossible to have any kind of objective discussion in threads where you are present. PLEASE DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD ANYMORE IF YOU INTEND TO CONTINUE TO PERSONALLY ATTACK ME.

All I'm trying to do is talk to people about things that interest other military aviation enthusiast. If that isn't your intent leave us alone and start your own threads. For the benefit of others. I'll post this link to dispel the incorrect assertion that a "10 hour bomber" will cost 50 billion.


-DA 






 

       


 

 

 


 
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



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy