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
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 repo....
 
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 co
 
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
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