The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
Herald12345    Program costs include planned aquisition.   5/28/2009 3:58:26 PM

Herald,




I'm not talking about the UNIT COST or total program cost of an actual NGB. That is not knowable until specific details about the aircraft are public. I clearly posted that it's Development Cost. And even at $300 million apiece, thats still FAR SHORT by 40% of the $50 billion you suggested earlier. In any event. You haven't discussed any errors made by me. That isn't possible unless you intend to discuss and debate civilly so that you don't end up making assumptions about what I'm saying. Anyway, moving along from discussion about you and I, continue to discuss the topic please and lets move past ANY PAST PERSONAL ISSUES.




-DA  

That is what is MEANT by program costs.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 3:58:56 PM

Warpig, what I am saying is that Congress is in a situation of their own doing which will make it very easy for them to cut DOD funding further (as they have in the past).

What I am saying is that while historically, weapons systems have not been fully funded down to the last airframe in ONE year, you can bet that a system that has NOT been paid for, is NOT SAFE.

That is all I am saying.

We have not paid for it so you cannot ASSUME we will get it.

No more, maybe less ;(

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Projected and planned outlays.   5/28/2009 4:25:27 PM





You cannot make that argument for the reasons I have already presented:




1) The F-35 has not had funds allocated so there is no guarantee they will be purchased




2) Even if the F-35 is purchased, because funds are not allocated, there will be a move to limit the purchase order as HAS BEEN THE CASE WITH EVERY AIRCRAFT order I can recall so it is all but certain we will NOT GET the numbers we requested/wanted earlier.




3) The Congress is out of money. Go back and read what I posted earlier.




When you have a congress openly discussing a Valued Added Tax on top of a National Sales Tax on top of a Cap and Trade Tax on top of allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the reasons behind this!




They have already cut the DOD budget and if history is any guide you can bank of the fact that Congress will continue to CUT the DOD budget.




Only a complete novice talks aircraft capability with out addressing the funds needed to acquire said aircraft.









So if Congress does not fund the ENTIRE $250billion for the entire projected F-35 buy of 2500 aircraft out through 2030+ in THIS YEAR'S budget, then we can not assume they will fund ANY F-35s AT ALL, and in fact you actually appear to be saying that if it's not all paid up front then IT WILL NOT be funded at all later on, either?!?  What multi-year weapon system procurement program ever worked that way?





 


At one time our crazed Navy projected a purchase schedule for up to 23 Zumwalts. Most of the players in Washington laughed at that one, but CBO dutifully published projected budget estimates and cost reports for a twenty year schedule fpr almost a decade before the truth leaked out that PEO screwed up another one. Test slippages, technology foulups, and the Navy all combined to reduce a 23 unit pirchase program to THREE and we're noit sure about the three.

What has this got to do with funding? Well the moiney cannot be lumopsimmed for a weapon program. heck we can't even bulk buy rifles in a one year block. But obligation can be programmed as the intent of Congress.  As the CRS report for the next generation bomber indicates, Congress instructs the USAF to program for a new bomber IOC around 2018-2023. That is, Congress tells the USAF to PLAN to spend money to develop and BUY a future bomber. Where that money comes from is up to Congress year by year (Constitition) but Congress made a LAW. No matter what the USAF thinks, they have to run a new bomber program until Congress says different.
 
This is a lot like what many weapon systems-especially critical ones like NMD and the Sparkie go through. Congress writes legislation directing two engines, what technology is allowed to non-Consortium members, treaty mods for the Consortium members, etc.
 
Until that 2400th Sparkie rolls out of the assembly shed, you can't say that Congress will fund 2400 Sparkies. Some a few, most, all, or more, you just can't say until ten years down the line. All you can do right now is see what the enabling law says. (This would be the series of agreements among the Sparkie Consortium. That has the force of  treaty law). What you can say with this pack of fools we have in Washington is that some Sparkies will be built. What you can say with that nimrod in 1600 Pennsylvania avenie is that unless he feels a PERSONAL compelling reason for the Sparkie, the program at the US end, will be cut, maybe severely, in the near future, because he needs that money for one of his lamebrain social programs. A politrician is about votes today, not the geostrategic and economic crisis in the making he leaves to his unfortunate successor ten or fifteen years down the road-esoecially if he, the current office holder, is a total incompetent.
 
Herald
 
   

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 4:40:10 PM
Again Herald, I'm only referring to the cost to DEVELOP a NGB and then only in the context that it neatly fits within the amount of money saved by not buying more F-22's. I'm not arguing what the total program cost will be, should be or speculating on unit cost. That is a separate issue.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Not what you said.   5/28/2009 4:48:49 PM
You said the new bomber program was a ten billion dollar program. I showed you, poster, that you didn't have a clue as to what  the enabling legislation was or what the program costs could or would be. You were wrong. Simple concept that. WRONG.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 5:06:50 PM
NO I DIDN'T POSTER. Stop trolling. I told you what I meant, linked the source and then reposted the relevant text to help you avoid getting confused. Since you did get confused I'll repost the clarification I provided for you...

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 1:54:39 PM

The Air Force is in the initial stages of formalizing a new bomber aircraft

acquisition program. This program, in accordance with Department of Defense

(DOD) and congressional mandates, is to produce a new long-range strike aircraft to

be operational by 2018. Air Force plans for acquiring a new bomber aircraft have

been accelerated by about 20 years from earlier projections because of a combination

of the Air Force?s desire to retire a portion of its B-52 fleet and DOD?s perception

of a developing ?bomber capability gap.?

Defense analysts have estimated that it will

cost between $8 billion and $10 billion to develop a new bomber using current or

?soon-to-mature? technologies.

 
Quote    Reply
 

...If you focus on debating rather than trying to prove you are right and pick fights then we can avoid this.

-DA 


 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/28/2009 5:12:02 PM

Herald,




I'm not talking about the UNIT COST or total program cost of an actual NGB. That is not knowable until specific details about the aircraft are public. I clearly posted that it's Development Cost. And even at $300 million apiece, thats still FAR SHORT by 40% of the $50 billion you suggested earlier. In any event. You haven't discussed any errors made by me. That isn't possible unless you intend to discuss and debate civilly so that you don't end up making assumptions about what I'm saying. Anyway, moving along from discussion about you and I, continue to discuss the topic please and lets move past ANY PAST PERSONAL ISSUES.




-DA  
No that is NOT what you *clearly* posted DA. Here is EXACTLY what you posted:
 I'll post this link to dispel the incorrect assertion that a "10 hour bomber" will cost 50 billion.


-DA 

No where in that comment is there anything whatsoever even remotely referring to *development* cost! Another one of your typical bullying techniques when outright confronted with what you said. I have watched you use this time and time again. Your 3 most often non stop used comments are, in no particular order:
 
1: I clearly showed....
2: I clearly said....
3: strawman...
 
You are a pathetic lilttle man that no doubt wakes up every morning and kisses the pictures of the ass's of your superiors you have posted on your wall and then *log on* to start the day supporting the unsupportable. You're a plain and simple brainless yes man DA.  God, I'd hate to be you.
 
Oh, and go ahead lilttle baby,  tell sysop lol Here's a news flash. I DON"T CARE!!!
 
Now carry on little man.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    ef Reply   5/28/2009 5:13:06 PM

They have already cut the DOD budget and if history is any guide you can bank of the fact that Congress will continue to CUT the DOD budget.

DIFFERENT TOPIC

Only a complete novice talks aircraft capability with out addressing the funds needed to acquire said aircraft.

And only a troll inserts strawman arguments and then derails a thread on issues not directly related to the topic. What the USAF CoS says he want's and how or if Congress will fund it are separate topics.
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/28/2009 5:15:26 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!!

 

Just give them AIM-9X and HMS and the HK is toast!




-DA 









If congress funds an additional 60 Raptors maybe by 2018 there will still be enough to go around and hunt down the HK's. LOL. Ok I'll stop now.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    ef Reply   5/28/2009 5:16:16 PM
Beazzz,

Did you fail to notice those post are in sequence so as to be clear what I'm talking about? Or did you just feel compelled to troll and insert homosexual references to the SecDef? I'd go on but you are a complete waste of bandwidth.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Mustang Reply   5/28/2009 5:18:27 PM

If congress funds an additional 60 Raptors maybe by 2018 there will still be enough to go around and hunt down the HK's. LOL. Ok I'll stop now.

LOL if HK's are next decades threat then even I support funding the 60 extra Raptors! Although depending on the range of the HK DEW and it's targeting capability then even a Raptor would be in trouble in that fight.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 5:23:46 PM
DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 1:54:39 PM

The Air Force is in the initial stages of formalizing a new bomber aircraft

acquisition program. This program, in accordance with Department of Defense

(DOD) and congressional mandates, is to produce a new long-range strike aircraft to

be operational by 2018. Air Force plans for acquiring a new bomber aircraft have

been accelerated by about 20 years from earlier projections because of a combination

of the Air Force?s desire to retire a portion of its B-52 fleet and DOD?s perception

of a developing ?bomber capability gap.?

Defense analysts have estimated that it will

cost between $8 billion and $10 billion to develop a new bomber using current or

?soon-to-mature? technologies.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 1:50:26 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!!
 
Just give them AIM-9X and HMS and the HK is toast!

-DA 
 
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

Are there any others who were confused as to what I was referencing?

-DA


SOURCE:
h*tp://strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-58480/page2.aspx 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/28/2009 5:25:30 PM
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 Out   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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
Herald12345    Program costs include planned aquisition.   5/28/2009 3:58:26 PM

Herald,




I'm not talking about the UNIT COST or total program cost of an actual NGB. That is not knowable until specific details about the aircraft are public. I clearly posted that it's Development Cost. And even at $300 million apiece, thats still FAR SHORT by 40% of the $50 billion you suggested earlier. In any event. You haven't discussed any errors made by me. That isn't possible unless you intend to discuss and debate civilly so that you don't end up making assumptions about what I'm saying. Anyway, moving along from discussion about you and I, continue to discuss the topic please and lets move past ANY PAST PERSONAL ISSUES.




-DA  

That is what is MEANT by program costs.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 3:58:56 PM

Warpig, what I am saying is that Congress is in a situation of their own doing which will make it very easy for them to cut DOD funding further (as they have in the past).

What I am saying is that while historically, weapons systems have not been fully funded down to the last airframe in ONE year, you can bet that a system that has NOT been paid for, is NOT SAFE.

That is all I am saying.

We have not paid for it so you cannot ASSUME we will get it.

No more, maybe less ;(

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Projected and planned outlays.   5/28/2009 4:25:27 PM





You cannot make that argument for the reasons I have already presented:




1) The F-35 has not had funds allocated so there is no guarantee they will be purchased




2) Even if the F-35 is purchased, because funds are not allocated, there will be a move to limit the purchase order as HAS BEEN THE CASE WITH EVERY AIRCRAFT order I can recall so it is all but certain we will NOT GET the numbers we requested/wanted earlier.




3) The Congress is out of money. Go back and read what I posted earlier.




When you have a congress openly discussing a Valued Added Tax on top of a National Sales Tax on top of a Cap and Trade Tax on top of allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the reasons behind this!




They have already cut the DOD budget and if history is any guide you can bank of the fact that Congress will continue to CUT the DOD budget.




Only a complete novice talks aircraft capability with out addressing the funds needed to acquire said aircraft.









So if Congress does not fund the ENTIRE $250billion for the entire projected F-35 buy of 2500 aircraft out through 2030+ in THIS YEAR'S budget, then we can not assume they will fund ANY F-35s AT ALL, and in fact you actually appear to be saying that if it's not all paid up front then IT WILL NOT be funded at all later on, either?!?  What multi-year weapon system procurement program ever worked that way?





 


At one time our crazed Navy projected a purchase schedule for up to 23 Zumwalts. Most of the players in Washington laughed at that one, but CBO dutifully published projected budget estimates and cost reports for a twenty year schedule fpr almost a decade before the truth leaked out that PEO screwed up another one. Test slippages, technology foulups, and the Navy all combined to reduce a 23 unit pirchase program to THREE and we're noit sure about the three.

What has this got to do with funding? Well the moiney cannot be lumopsimmed for a weapon program. heck we can't even bulk buy rifles in a one year block. But obligation can be programmed as the intent of Congress.  As the CRS report for the next generation bomber indicates, Congress instructs the USAF to program for a new bomber IOC around 2018-2023. That is, Congress tells the USAF to PLAN to spend money to develop and BUY a future bomber. Where that money comes from is up to Congress year by year (Constitition) but Congress made a LAW. No matter what the USAF thinks, they have to run a new bomber program until Congress says different.
 
This is a lot like what many weapon systems-especially critical ones like NMD and the Sparkie go through. Congress writes legislation directing two engines, what technology is allowed to non-Consortium members, treaty mods for the Consortium members, etc.
 
Until that 2400th Sparkie rolls out of the assembly shed, you can't say that Congress will fund 2400 Sparkies. Some a few, most, all, or more, you just can't say until ten years down the line. All you can do right now is see what the enabling law says. (This would be the series of agreements among the Sparkie Consortium. That has the force of  treaty law). What you can say with this pack of fools we have in Washington is that some Sparkies will be built. What you can say with that nimrod in 1600 Pennsylvania avenie is that unless he feels a PERSONAL compelling reason for the Sparkie, the program at the US end, will be cut, maybe severely, in the near future, because he needs that money for one of his lamebrain social programs. A politrician is about votes today, not the geostrategic and economic crisis in the making he leaves to his unfortunate successor ten or fifteen years down the road-esoecially if he, the current office holder, is a total incompetent.
 
Herald
 
   

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 4:40:10 PM
Again Herald, I'm only referring to the cost to DEVELOP a NGB and then only in the context that it neatly fits within the amount of money saved by not buying more F-22's. I'm not arguing what the total program cost will be, should be or speculating on unit cost. That is a separate issue.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Not what you said.   5/28/2009 4:48:49 PM
You said the new bomber program was a ten billion dollar program. I showed you, poster, that you didn't have a clue as to what  the enabling legislation was or what the program costs could or would be. You were wrong. Simple concept that. WRONG.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 5:06:50 PM
NO I DIDN'T POSTER. Stop trolling. I told you what I meant, linked the source and then reposted the relevant text to help you avoid getting confused. Since you did get confused I'll repost the clarification I provided for you...

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 1:54:39 PM

The Air Force is in the initial stages of formalizing a new bomber aircraft

acquisition program. This program, in accordance with Department of Defense

(DOD) and congressional mandates, is to produce a new long-range strike aircraft to

be operational by 2018. Air Force plans for acquiring a new bomber aircraft have

been accelerated by about 20 years from earlier projections because of a combination

of the Air Force?s desire to retire a portion of its B-52 fleet and DOD?s perception

of a developing ?bomber capability gap.?

Defense analysts have estimated that it will

cost between $8 billion and $10 billion to develop a new bomber using current or

?soon-to-mature? technologies.
 
Quote    Reply
 

...If you focus on debating rather than trying to prove you are right and pick fights then we can avoid this.

-DA 


 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       5/28/2009 5:12:02 PM

Herald,




I'm not talking about the UNIT COST or total program cost of an actual NGB. That is not knowable until specific details about the aircraft are public. I clearly posted that it's Development Cost. And even at $300 million apiece, thats still FAR SHORT by 40% of the $50 billion you suggested earlier. In any event. You haven't discussed any errors made by me. That isn't possible unless you intend to discuss and debate civilly so that you don't end up making assumptions about what I'm saying. Anyway, moving along from discussion about you and I, continue to discuss the topic please and lets move past ANY PAST PERSONAL ISSUES.




-DA  
No that is NOT what you *clearly* posted DA. Here is EXACTLY what you posted:
 I'll post this link to dispel the incorrect assertion that a "10 hour bomber" will cost 50 billion.


-DA 

No where in that comment is there anything whatsoever even remotely referring to *development* cost! Another one of your typical bullying techniques when outright confronted with what you said. I have watched you use this time and time again. Your 3 most often non stop used comments are, in no particular order:
 
1: I clearly showed....
2: I clearly said....
3: strawman...
 
You are a pathetic lilttle man that no doubt wakes up every morning and kisses the pictures of the ass's of your superiors you have posted on your wall and then *log on* to start the day supporting the unsupportable. You're a plain and simple brainless yes man DA.  God, I'd hate to be you.
 
Oh, and go ahead lilttle baby,  tell sysop lol Here's a news flash. I DON"T CARE!!!
 
Now carry on little man.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    ef Reply   5/28/2009 5:13:06 PM

They have already cut the DOD budget and if history is any guide you can bank of the fact that Congress will continue to CUT the DOD budget.

DIFFERENT TOPIC

Only a complete novice talks aircraft capability with out addressing the funds needed to acquire said aircraft.

And only a troll inserts strawman arguments and then derails a thread on issues not directly related to the topic. What the USAF CoS says he want's and how or if Congress will fund it are separate topics.
-DA

In BLUE :quod erat demonstratum: EGO sum nunquam nefas quoniam EGO sum Caesar!
 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 5:35:48 PM
Herald, EF and BEAZZZ. I'm not here to get into personal conflicts. I seriously want to debate others who are interested in the threads I start. Could the three of you please stop this? There are 40+ post here and it hasn't even been a day. Most of that unfortunately HAS NOTHING to do with the thread topic. I KNOW YOU GUYS DO NOT RESPECT MY OPINIONS. Noted. Now can you leave me to my own ideas so that I can talk with people who do wish to post with me? Thanks. It's getting to the point where we can't even post new threads without you doing this to people and especially me.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/28/2009 5:56:49 PM

Some of you really need to give the personal attacks here a rest. You are taking the fun out of these threads because of a difference of opinion. DA and  myself certaintly do not agree on all issues but to make references to someone's personal or professional life is uncalled for. The link provided clearly stated development in reference to the 10 billion as did the post under it. I'm not here to pick sides of any sorts and will clearly support anyone that I agree with on cooresponding threads and appreciate any support I have received from any of you, but I believe keeping the opinions on the subject matter only would be in everyone's best interest. Everyone gets mad including myself but that's not an excuse to rip someone apart, lets not forget that some careers dictate what's acceptable and doesn't necessarily translate into a person's true position, and if it does so be it. I have been humbled many times, it has only made me a better person.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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