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
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       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

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 1:56:14 PM
 ---DA---First, I'm not interested in debating the vagaries of congressional funding practices. ---Then there is no need to even bother discussing aircraft of any type past your own personal fantasies.

It does not matter what it can do either on paper or in the air; if you do not have the cash to buy it, it might as well not exist.

This actually HURTS your argument for FEWER F-22s.

---DA---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.---

The United States Air Force and the military decision making process is intimately linked with Congressional appropriations. You cannot separate the two for reasons I have already listed. Ergo, discussing them here is just as relevant as discussing them in another board.

---DA---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.---

Noted but that still leaves 80 aircraft replacing how many hundreds?

---DA---Lastly, the congressional budgeting process, has nothing to do with logistics and the context in which we are speaking.---

No money, no M16s.

No money, no F-22s.

No money, no F-35s.

No money, no WATER.

No money, no FOOD.

These things and the money used to purchase them come from the Constitutional authority delegated to the Congress and NO OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

This is LOGISTICS pure and simple Darth.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 2:05:21 PM
A case for the NGB, to be unmanned. HUMAN FACTORS. Go about 3 Min and 15 Sec into this video and listen to what a fighter pilot thinks about flying missions that last a long time...

 

This same principle applies to a new USAF bomber.

-DA

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 2:14:19 PM

This is LOGISTICS pure and simple Darth.



No, it's spin EF. I said I didn't want to discuss congress in the CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. As in I'f Congress decides to give ACORN 99% of the Federal Budget and the DoD 1%, then I'm only interested in talking about how the DoD can make best use of the 1% regardless of WHY Congress does that. If you want to discuss that Congress should be providing more or less funds then please start a new thread. My suggestion is "How much money should Congress allocate to Defense vs other priorities." Try it and I'm sure many would be interested. Otherwise please don't derail this thread please. Thanks.

As a reminder and for your convenience, this thread is about the USAF CoS preferring F-35, UAS and NGB. And in fact his list of "unfunded" priorities, AS IN THINGS HE WANTS BUT CONGRESS HASN'T FUNDED, the F-22 is not on that list.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    As I pointed out.   5/28/2009 2:41:13 PM



Now I don't know about the rest of you, but as I've said repeatedly about this 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 provide an air defense when I know 283 is more like the number needed. As said before, The F-22 is NOT IDEAL as a missile shover and PACRIM patroller, but it is the BEST we have now building. Since I am a pessimist, and I don't believe 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 until 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 


















 



       






 



 



 







 
 $10 billion?  Since its likely that the new bomber will cost per unit at least TWICE to THREE times what a Sparky or an F-22 costs and that the USAF wants at least 100 units by that study what is that program cost again?
 
100 aircraft at $100 million is $10 billion dollars.
100 aircraft at $200 million is $20 billion dollars.
100 aircraft at $300 million is $30 billion dollars
 
From the report:
 
 
How Much Will the Next Generation Bomber Cost?
Because the Air Force does not have a formal proposal out for the next
generation bomber, it is difficult to determine the potential cost of the program.
What has been announced is the Air Force?s plan to spend at least $1.6 billion
through 2011 on t
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 2:49:45 PM
---DA---No, it's spin EF. I said I didn't want to discuss congress in the CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD.----Your entire thread is budgetary logistics Darth!

Your post: ---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. - 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.---

So you have Air Force personnel testifying before Congress regarding their BUDGET NEEDS and REQUESTS.

Part of your argument against more F-22s is the wish list from unfounded priorities:
---ADDENDUM 5/27/2009 10:50:20 PM F-22 PROCUREMENT NOT IN THE USAF CoS "Wish List" of top unfunded priorities?----

Part of your argument against more F-22s is that the F-35 will come online in the numbers needed to adequately replace the current fleet.

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.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 2:52:39 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  
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/28/2009 3:00:17 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?


 
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       5/28/2009 3:56:10 PM
The VAT tax IS the national sales tax, not "ON TOP OF".
 
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