The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 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    Nothing personal: Mustang.   5/28/2009 6:20:47 PM
I only return fire. And even when I do, its to show ON POINT where error occurs.As for example the attempt to decoiple CONGRESS from what will happen to defense. That is like trying to put out a fire with a fire hose and no water supply.
 
This stuff costs MONEY. Who holds the purse strings? 

President proposes. Congress disposes.
 

 
 
Hello?
 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 6:43:51 PM
---DA---DIFFERENT TOPIC---Different but related.
Only a complete novice talks aircraft capability with out addressing the funds needed to acquire said aircraft.

---DA---And only a troll inserts strawman arguments---I have not used a single logical fallacy here and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

 ---DA---and then derails a thread on issues not directly related to the topic.---Everything I have mentioned here has been directly or indirectly related to your topic. I even cut and pasted from your FIRST POST and put the important parts in high lighter just so you can see how they are related.

Instead of actually reading and comprehending what I wrote, it appears to me you would rather attack me (notice I have not attacked you, the novice comment was a warning NOT directed at you but just a general statement or warning) and yet here you are dismissing what I have said and labeling me a troll.

Why is this?

---DA---What the USAF CoS says he want's and how or if Congress will fund it are separate topics.---They can be separate topics or they can be the SAME topic. Why? Because the two are intimately related.

Demonstrate otherwise if you can because I have already demonstrated how the two are inexorably linked.

---DA---In BLUE :quod erat demonstratum: EGO sum nunquam nefas quoniam EGO sum Caesar! Herald ---

Your translation is off Darth; I suppose the online translator did not serve you as well as you assumed. That is a poor attempt at mockery; some may see Herald as arrogant (I do not see it) but as a God figure (Caesar)? Too far.

---DA---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.---

Really? Then perhaps you will address some of my points that you have conveniently ignored.

Here I will restate the most important ones:

Seeing as Congress had dug a hole so deep they could send a runner to China for more tea financially, and have already cut from the DOD and have a history of cutting defense projects when the money dries up, and seeing as the F-35 has not been purchased, YET, how can you claim that hundreds of F-35s that DO NOT EXIST and have NOT YET BEEN PURCHASED can act as a cushion for the cut in F-22s?

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/28/2009 7:31:47 PM

EF,


OK, first, to avoid anyone getting the idea that this is personal. Lets leave the "novice" comments out of this. I get your point that funds need to made available. Nobody is disputing that. My point is simply WHICH programs the the USAF CoS thinks the should get funding.


Also, I didn't do any translation. I think it's Herald who posted that. I didn't even respond to that. Finally, the F-35's that the USAF are planning to fund, WILL provide the cushion for the early retirement of legacy fighters and decision not to purchase the 60 additional F-22's. The USAF CoS has stated that we can take the risk now of a decrease in the fighter force in order to redirect funds toward the F-35 and other programs that are coming next decade. The logical fallacy was that your post suggested that since the entire multi year procurement of F-35s have not been funded in FY2010, that it is unlikely that they will be. This is not representative of the way multi year procurement programs work where they are funded over time rather than all at once.


All of these issues have been made clear. Your points and mine are clearly laid out in enough detail that people understand what we mean. So lets move forward and not play semantics with each other.



-DA
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       5/28/2009 7:48:48 PM
---Da---OK, first, to avoid anyone getting the idea that this is personal. Lets leave the "novice" comments out of this. ---
Oh FFS Darth, that was a comment YOU QUOTED me saying (THAT WAS NOT DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS YOU anyway) and I forgot to delete it when I cut and pasted.
I have not insulted you ONCE in this entire debate.

What I wrote in my previous post:

Instead of actually reading and comprehending what I wrote, it appears to me you would rather attack me (notice I have not attacked you, the novice comment was a warning NOT directed at you but just a general statement or warning) and yet here you are dismissing what I have said and labeling me a troll.

Why is this?

---Da---I get your point that funds need to made available. Nobody is disputing that. My point is simply WHICH programs the the USAF CoS thinks the should get funding.---That is great and we can discuss that but my point is that you were using the F-35 acquisition as further evidence that we did not need more F-22s.

I was pointing out that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

---Da---Also, I didn't do any translation. I think it's Herald who posted that.---Well my mistake. This forum format goes the hell and gone when people start posting things and the format confuses the hell out of me; the eye does not help.

---Da--- I didn't even respond to that. Finally, the F-35's that the USAF are planning to fund, WILL provide the cushion for the early retirement of legacy fighters and decision not to purchase the 60 additional F-22's.---

IF THEY AER PURCHASED! IF. IF. IF. That is my point.

You cannot use them in this debate because we have not paid for them and there is a chance, however unlikely, that we will at least cut the order down.

 ---Da---The USAF CoS has stated that we can take the risk now of a decrease in the fighter force in order to redirect funds toward the F-35 and other programs that are coming next decade.---And what happens if we cut the F-35 order substantially and then other nations cut their orders and the price goes through the roof further forcing us to cut our order even more?

That is a POSSIBILIBITY so please tell me what we are going to do if that happens?

---Da---The logical fallacy was that your post suggested that since the entire multi year procurement of F-35s have not been funded in FY2010, that it is unlikely that they will be. ---That is not a logical fallacy; that is a fact: if we have not bought it, we MAY NOT BUY IT in the future.

History supports this.

How many F-22s did the we originally want to buy?

How many B-2s did we originally want to buy?

---Da---This is not representative of the way multi year procurement programs work where they are funded over time rather than all at once.---How many programs have started out with us wanting X and then after 4 - 10 years and BILLIONS in cost over runs we decide that we can live with X - Y unites to save costs?

I can think of several programs in which this has occurred.

Are you telling me that this is not possible with the F-35?

---Da---All of these issues have been made clear. Your points and mine are clearly laid out in enough detail that people understand what we mean. So lets move forward and not play semantics with each other.--This is not an issue of semantics but of practicality: the Congress is OUT OF MONEY and we have not yet paid for F-35s.

The Congress is publicly floating VAT, national sales tax, Cap and Trade. These ideas were once considered to be third rail: mention them and you career goes bye-bye. So this should scare the piss out of you because if they are mentioning this they are strapped for cash big time.

History tells me there is one Executive agency that is the holy-cash-cow of budget cuts when the **** fairy pays a visit and that is the Department of Defense.

So now we are cutting our order of F-22s predicated on the ASSUMPTION that we will get many or most of the orders of F-35s that we want and I am telling you there is a possibility that we will be slashing the F-35 big time in the next coming years.

What do we do if that happens?
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/28/2009 8:45:07 PM
I'm trying to figure out how an unfunded list relates to operational requirements. The answer is it does not. If you understand the budget process- something we're not supposed to discuss in this thread, even though the thread is completely about the budget process- then you understand how politicial it is. 
Does anyone think that the list was not vetted by SECDEF's office prior to being sent to Congress? If you think the USAF CoS sent it directly to Congress without vetting it through his boss, you're nuts.
 
If I'm the USAF CoS now, I let Congress fight my battles. They want more F-22's. The USAF's CoS's boss does not. Why get involved anymore than to tell the truth about what risk is associated, based on the USAF's CoS's professional opinion (not a political opinion) and then let the politicians battle it out?
 
The USAF CoS has repeatedly said that 187 is a high risk buy and that 243 is a medium risk buy. SECDEF tells the USAF you're going with the high risk option. The USAF tells the SECDEF "roger" and goes on to build their budget proposal based on the high risk option. What they cannot fund, based on the the President's budget, in the high risk option goes on the unfunded list.
 
Again, an unfunded list does not necessarily equate to operational need.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/29/2009 9:39:47 AM
May actually be a very sly tactic by AF CoS. Knowing enough not to argue the issue with Gates, why not publicly endorse the decision but discretely make it known that 243 is still a moderate risk and let Congress fight the battle for you? 
 
Agree completley on the F-35 issue. I made several references to support not closing down the F-22 because of all the unknowns. Don't know how many will actually be funded, don't know flyaway cost, will it be a success or failure in its intended role? DOD isn't really providing any information as to plan B if it doesn't work out. I would think having a fifth generation line up and running makes sense, AF thinks they will run into a fighter shortage if Sparkie is a success, where does that leave them if its not?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EF and Mustang Reply   5/29/2009 12:40:52 PM
So now we are cutting our order of F-22s predicated on the ASSUMPTION that we will get many or most of the orders of F-35s that we want and I am telling you there is a possibility that we will be slashing the F-35 big time in the next coming years.

What do we do if that happens?

All procurement is based on assumptions. When the F-22 was designed we assumed we would someday be at war with Soviets and wanted over 700. When the B-2 was designed we assumed we needed 100+. When that threat disappeared we smartly reduced those numbers to levels that were in line with the threats. We are continuing that process and always will. You don't need to tell me that it's possible for the F-35 buy to get reduced. If the threat changes, then the numbers SHOULD BE adjusted up or down accordingly. Contracts don't say I USA promise to buy 70 F-22's no matter what EF. Notice that procurement of UAS platforms is well beyond what we said we would buy prior to the GWOT. That's because there is a need. That's how it works. 

Again, no threat can stand up to the F-22's we have committed to buy. The risks we are taking are short term while the USAF retires legacy aircraft to reduce cost and prior to the F-35 IOC. This means that all 10 AEF won't have F-22's. Not a problem for any one threat. It's only a possible issue if we get caught up it two simultaneous conflicts against near peer opponents because we will suffer higher attrition with legacy platforms that have to cover for fewer F-22's until the F-35 arrives. It's a risk all have acknowledged to be short term and unlikely. Moreover, we have much more urgent needs such as more UAS and a NGB. I just showed you how that for less than the cost of the 60 Raptors some here want. We could completely fund the development of one of these much more urgent and long term priorities which are on the USAF CoS list of things he'd like to see for the USAF.

Mustang, I don't think the USAF CoS is being coy. He has mentioned these statements with regard to risk long before this got controversial. And as I mentioned, he didn't resign in protest, make public statements or mention the F-22 in his unfunded programs list. He has given ZERO support whatsoever for continued procurement and has in fact gone on record supporting the decision.  

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       5/29/2009 12:47:38 PM
Meanwhile, GAO has issued its latest report on the JSF program.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/29/2009 1:47:30 PM
Mustang, I don't think the USAF CoS is being coy. He has mentioned these statements with regard to risk long before this got controversial. And as I mentioned, he didn't resign in protest, make public statements or mention the F-22 in his unfunded programs list. He has given ZERO support whatsoever for continued procurement and has in fact gone on record supporting the decision.  

-Long before this got controversial? This has been controversial since the days when the Clinton Administration decided to cut the buy from 700+ to 383.
 
I have to think you're practicing willful ignorance. You do realize that Gates forced the nation's highest ranking officers to shut up when it came to the FY10 defense budget, right? A four-star supporting the SECDEF? You don't say, what do you think he was going to do? If you think Moseley was fired just because of the nuclear thing you're sadly mistaken. He was highly critical of SECDEF and his focus on OIF/OEF at the expense of the future (he complained in Feb and was looking for work in Jun).  Don't think that the current CoS doesn't understand that.

Yet again you mention the unfunded list. The unfunded list has little to nothing to do with actual military need for the reasons I explained earlier. Of course the USAF CoS who had been put under a gag order by the SECDEF, will submit budget requests that fall in line with the SEDEF's views. To think otherwise is fooling yourself.
 
The decision to stop F-22 production is based on deployment timetables for the USA/USMC when things were going south in Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is the US public doesn't have the stomach for large deployments of troops anymore.  We are going to see more small unit deployments to build relationships, stabilize governments, and hunt down the occasional terrorist.  We are going to see more regional powers develop. We are going to see the more regional powers develop. We are going to see more proliferation of 4th generation aircraft and modern Russian air defenses.

Gates is busy trying to transition the military from a Cold War military to a post Cold War military. He missed the boat. Pax America where we will be unchallenged on the sea and the air is gone. It was gone when we decided it was in our national interests to deploy large numbers of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and spend our national treasure on those operations. A window has opened for regional powers to challenge us, they know it. We should know it, but we don't. Gates has fallen into the same trap as those who have gone before. He is preparing for the last war. In this case, the last war is OIF/OEF.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That was: me EF.   5/29/2009 2:06:44 PM
Your translation is off Darth; I suppose the online translator did not serve you as well as you assumed. That is a poor attempt at mockery; some may see Herald as arrogant (I do not see it) but as a God figure (Caesar)? Too far.
 
"I never make a mistake for I am Caesar."  Not a translator but a bungled transliteration.
 
 Numquam erro, nam Caesar sum  is much better..
 
One of those "mistakes" I make and the explanation why.. 
 
Herald 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    benellim4 reply   5/29/2009 3:23:48 PM

Mustang, I don't think the USAF CoS is being coy. He has mentioned these statements with regard to risk long before this got controversial. And as I mentioned, he didn't resign in protest, make public statements or mention the F-22 in his unfunded programs list. He has given ZERO support whatsoever for continued procurement and has in fact gone on record supporting the decision.  --DA


-Long before this got controversial? This has been controversial since the days when the Clinton Administration decided to cut the buy from 700+ to 383.


OK thats just plain incorrect data. There was never a cut from 700+ to 383 by President Clinton. The F-22 buy has been reduced in-line with the threat since at least 1990 under President Bush and SecDef Dick Cheney. The F-22 was cut from 700+ to 648. Then from 648 to 442. Then from that number to 339. Then IIRC recommendations by the USAF fighter Mafia pushed back for 383 and finally we have ended up with the 243 and 187 numbers. In other words, the Pentagon has been trimming F-22 fat in lock step with the Soviet style threat it was designed to face. NOTHING has changed with that trend. The last SecDef wanted it cut as well. Only legacy Cold Warriors who's perceptions of the threat were proven wrong or Congress persons who's districts are involved in production have supported the aircraft in more numbers. EVEN LOCKHEED doesn't want to fight for more BenelliM4. Think about that. The controversy has peeked only because we are at the end of the production cycle and final decisions must be made.


 

I have to think you're practicing willful ignorance. You do realize that Gates forced the nation's highest ranking officers to shut up when it came to the FY10 defense budget, right? A four-star supporting the SECDEF? You don't say, what do you think he was going to do? If you think Moseley was fired just because of the nuclear thing you're sadly mistaken. He was highly critical of SECDEF and his focus on OIF/OEF at the expense of the future (he complained in Feb and was looking for work in Jun).  Don't think that the current CoS doesn't understand that. 


Chastising Rebuke...


No, I don't realize that. This is internet mythology and in no way are you in a position to support such a claim. The SecDef is in charge and leads the DoD. He is the BOSS. If he decides that the DoD needs to go into a particular direction, then that is the way it goes. That's why he is put there. The Generals do not have to agree and they can resign or be fired if there are fundamental differences in the way things should go. I think rather than ignorant, I actually understand how it is supposed to work. The CIVILIAN is in charge for a reason.




Yet again you mention the unfunded list. The unfunded list has little to nothing to do with actual military need for the reasons I explained earlier. Of course the USAF CoS who had been put under a gag order by the SECDEF, will submit budget requests that fall in line with the SEDEF's views. To think otherwise is fooling yourself.


Again, you are wildly speculating on something I know you cannot prove. Again, calling me foolish is laughable when you can't provide even a scintilla of support for what you are claiming while I can fire back with direct quotes OF ALL INVOLVED PARTIES and then support those quotes with analysis. But it's cool if you disagree. Just know that if you and I were to take our respective positions in-front of a truly neutral 3rd party yours would go down in flames. I dare you to try.


 

The decision to stop F-22 production is based on deployment timetables for the USA/USMC when things were going south in Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is the US public doesn't have the stomach for large deployments of troops anymore.  We are going to see more small unit deployments to build relationships, stabilize governments, and hunt down the occasional terrorist.  We are going to see more regional powers develop. We are going to see the more regional powers develop. We are going to see more proliferation of 4th generation aircraft and modern Russian air defenses. 


This has been predicted by JFK 50 years ago. Nothing is new about the trend toward small unit warfare and the USAF is capable of defeating any current or projected regional power as is and under current plans through the next 2 decades. Regional powers are not an issue. In fact the only concern is for the simultinaeity of the conflicts. And only in the case of two near peer opponents is there an issue with regard to the F-22's roles. A very very low probability.



Gates is busy trying to transition the military from a Cold War military to a post Cold War military. He missed the boat. Pax America where we will be unchallenged on the sea and the air is gone. It was gone when we decided it was in our national interests to deploy large numbers of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and spend our national treasure on those operations. A window has opened for regional powers to challenge us, they know it. We should know it, but we don't. Gates has fallen into the same trap as those who have gone before. He is preparing for the last war. In this case, the last war is OIF/OEF.


Please. The USA dominance of the air and sea is many times stronger than it was at any point in history and continues to improve. We have no credible opponents in those domains. NONE. And the window you are talking about. I brought that up long ago and it is closing fast. Russia was the only power to even attempt to get through it and then only to preserve some of their former client states and stop NATO from getting to within unrefueled range of Moscow. Other than that the North Koreans proved they might be able to make a nuclear explosion. Iran failed utterly during the surge and the Chinese turned out not to be a direct threat as was hoped for by soon to be unemployed Cold Warriors.


This is reality. Not that you have to agree with my interpretation. But if you want to take the Pepsi Challenge and see if your positions are as strong as mine I'd love to see if you have more than just rumors and gossip.



-DA
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       5/29/2009 3:56:47 PM
DA,
 
We have discussed many times over why I support 60 more Raptors and you have provided you opinion on why they aren't necessary. So I have to ask, if Congress does provide the funds for more will you be as critical on that decision as you are on Gates decision to cut production? I don't want to start an "I told you so" argument, just looking for what your reaction might be.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/29/2009 4:03:14 PM

 I just showed you how that for less than the cost of the 60 Raptors some here want. We could completely fund the development of one of these much more urgent and long term priorities which are on the USAF CoS list of things he'd like to see for the USAF.
No you didn't, poster. You showed a development cost estimate for the new bomber and even that was wrong as I CLEARLY showed..

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/29/2009 4:05:28 PM

DA,

 
We have discussed many times over why I support 60 more Raptors and you have provided you opinion on why they aren't necessary. So I have to ask, if Congress does provide the funds for more will you be as critical on that decision as you are on Gates decision to cut production? I don't want to start an "I told you so" argument, just looking for what your reaction might be.

No, I believe I've said before. I do not think the USAF should get 60 more Raptors but that if it does, so long as Congress provides ADDITIONAL funding for it and it doesn't touch or take away from other USAF programs, I would be fine with that. 

If someone wants to just give me 60 more to play with fine. But it's not worth it if it means sacrificing something else within the USAF/DoD. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    NULL CONTENT   5/29/2009 4:09:19 PM

 I just showed you how that for less than the cost of the 60 Raptors some here want. We could completely fund the development of one of these much more urgent and long term priorities which are on the USAF CoS list of things he'd like to see for the USAF.

No you didn't, poster. You showed a development cost estimate for the new bomber and even that was wrong as I CLEARLY showed..
Herald


As usual NULL CONTENT the poster couldn't back up and got caught trying to spin. Any future references to this by will be ignored.

-DA 
 
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