USAF CoS Prefers F-35, UAS and NGB. Also say USAF has enough TACAIR capability

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

RockyMTNClimber Beazz reply 5/30/2009 11:51:41 AM

I have to agree with the idea that this "announcement" was an attempt to follow the company line on the F22 v. F35. The political decision has been made to cut the F22 and the USAF has to do some credible damage control over their research that showed the 187/F22 was actually a decision to accept the high threat profile of the matrix. There is no ground breaking data publicly revealed to show the circumstances have materially changed since January, and in fact, events have gotten considerably worse for US over there (NK missiles and nukes to name one example).

This post does not support the thought process that the F22 can be safely reduced and the subject of payment for the F35 is simply answered for Evilfishy: we will borrow the money from our children's future earnings, savings, and jobs potential, or, we will print money and inflate our way through it until we destroy the US-$.

Check Six

Rocky

Note to Herald: Sir, you sound almost credible when you stick to the topic and avoid personal insults. You are very good at internet research, why don't you learn to win debates through that instead of making yourself look like a troll by unnecessarily provoking people with personal attacks. I almost hate to read through threads when I see you are participating in them and I know I am not alone in that sentiment. Just a thought.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica No number of F-22's are enough... 5/30/2009 1:06:53 PM

II have a stratfor subscription too. And here is a summary of the key points...

We could argue that both Gates and the Air Force are missing the point. Gates is right that the Air Force should focus on unmanned aircraft; technology has simply moved beyond the piloted aircraft as a model. But this does not mean the Air Force should not be preparing for the next war. Just as the military should have been preparing for the U.S.-jihadist war while also waging the Cold War, so too, the military should be preparing for the next conflict while fighting this war. For a country that spends as much time in wars as the United States (about 17 percent of the 20th century in major wars, almost all of the 21st century), Gates? wish to focus so narrowly on this war seems reckless.

I actually agree with this! Which is why I'm glad to see mention of the NGB and an intense focus on stealthy strike capable UAS as well as the F-35. This is why I'm waiting to see the QDR and how the DoD will follow through with this BEFORE I make final judgement. If the DoD successfully deploys the F-35 and continues to bring in newer ISR and UAS related technologies then we are actually leaping ahead of the enemy and ensuring that we can deal with 4th Gen warfare.

Note, the JAPANESE, YES, JAPANESE, deployed 2 P-3 aircraft to Africa for anti-piracy operations. This is an aircraft with PERSISTENT LOITER capability and the sensor suite to cover many times more area than warships/helicopters. Important because next decade it will be BAMS doing this kind of thing.

At the same time, building a new and fiendishly expensive version of the last generation?s weapons does not necessarily constitute preparing for the next war. The Air Force was built around the piloted combat aircraft. The Navy was built around sailing ships. Those who flew and those who sailed were necessary and courageous. But sailing ships don?t fit into the modern fleet, and it is not clear to us that manned aircraft will fit into high-intensity peer conflict in the future.

Especially since the F-22 is designed around European theater range requirements and doesn't have the range or persistence to allow for secure basing in the PACRIM. Adding 60 more ill-suited fighters simply means that we have 13 billion less to use to develop systems that are purpose built and 3 AEF not deployed since not all AEF would be committed to a single conflict will have 18 more F-22's. Thats it.

We do not agree that preparing for the next war is pathological. We should always be fighting this war and preparing for the next. But we don?t believe the Air Force is preparing for the next war. There will be wars between nations, fought with all the chips on the table. Gates is right that the Air Force should focus on unmanned aircraft. But not because of this war alone.

AND there you have it. A very credible analysis from a reputable source CONFIRMING or at least agreeing with my position. So while some of you may not agree for whatever reason, at least now you can see that there is a very strong argument to the contrary that DOES support Gates decision and my support of that decision. Objective persons in my opinion would wait for the QDR and the direction of things through 2012 before passing final approval or disapproval because only then will it be known if Gates is going to follow up this decision with the decisions necessary to balance the DoD to be capable of fighting State or Non-State alike.

============================================

The problem as I've tried to explain is that the autonomous artilects are not yet smart enough to do what men can do in split seconds, and tele-operation telemetry is TOO VULNERABLE to things I can figure out to do to it to risk the nation on a robot air force.

And in the 1980's Robots weren't considered mature enough to be primary tools of strike warfare which is why F-111/A-6 bombed Libya and why Israel used F-15/16 against Osirak. But because e spent the money to develop TLAMS and ALCM we saw ROBOTS get smart enough to replace men in many strike roles to the point where those weapons are no primary tools.

With regard to something being "TOO VULNERABLE" that's just plain wrong. Everything is vulnerable to something. It's simply a matter of robustness and redundancy. And the DoD has taken steps to secure its communications for the next generation. I know that because I've seen some of it being implemented. But you don't have to be serving to know the DoD is well aware of the vulnerability and is doing things to mitigate it. Remember the Anti-GPS devices Serbia and Iraq tried to use? Well the USAF demonstrated the point quite spectacularly and it is continuing to do things to protect itself.

Satellites are the key to robot warfare. These can be blanked or splashed.

Celestrak

Indira 66

Once that happens you are limited to the curvature of the Earth and that restricts you to LoS. Once again, that telemetry and tele-operation can be degraded. Its called jamming.

They keep trying. Eventually someone will figure it out.

You need tha MAN and you need the PLANE until we solve the hypersonics, artilect, and the EW issues.

Of course. So unless you are saying that non of these problems are solvable then we are on the right track since we have MEN in PLANEs and will have them through the 2020's at least and probably longer as ROBOTS are perfected and SLOWLY integrated into the force.

There is a trend in your post where when you disagree with something, you throw out a technical issue that's a current milestone without any explanation and you insinuate that the problem is insurmountable or that because it's a problem now, it will never be overcome in the future.

This is like saying that because an F-86 can't go Mach 1 due to it's design limits that Super Sonic fighters are impossible. It's like you ignore development stages.

That is what the amateurs (including Gates) don't understand.

Please take Rocky's advice and stop posting personal attacks on Gates or anyone else. Have you been a SecDef or do you have his credentials? Probably not. Besides you don't have access to the information he does, non of us do, and he isn't here to defend himself. It makes you look bad and you are better.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 5/30/2009 3:24:05 PM

1. Don't try to twist what I say.

2. Don't selectively misinterpret the Stratfor article, either. Basically it said that Gates is stick in am ostrich strategy fixated on the NOW, with no thought to the future SoD. The Air Force has to look at the future and it disagrees.

Also don't try the tired canard of the F-22 was designed for Europe. Doesn't fly. The USAF is designed to fight globally. If the Eagle is good enough to cover the Pacific, then the Raptor is too. Shot that science fiction down.

The P-2 is a MANNED platform. The P-8 is the US version coming on line. Shot that duck down.

In effect your arguments and assertions just vanished in <150 words on the technical merits and FACTS. Didn't even work up a sweat.

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 5/30/2009 3:46:26 PM

1. Don't try to twist what I say.

No one twisted what you said. Stop making this about you. I gave you a military professional's opinion of a STRATFOR article. You don't have to agree with that analysis but it is my opinion.

OK if that's how you wish to interpret it. But anyone who can read will see different. I'll let others make up there own minds. It clearly stated that the future is in UNMANNED TECHNOLOGIES.

No, actually you didn't. And the F-22 is not designed to fight in the PACRIM against the 21st century requirements necessary to win tomorrows wars by itself.

The P-2 is a MANNED platform. The P-8 is the US version coming on line. Shot that duck down.

BAMS. Nuff said.

In effect your arguments and assertions just vanished in <150 words on the technical merits and FACTS. Didn't even work up a sweat.

No, just like the merchant for missiles idea, you have clung to your ideology and will not consider that perhaps you don't understand as much as you think.

Your assertions are not fact. You have an opinion, I have one, others have theirs. This isn't about "shooting down" others arguments. Again, DEBATE, don't ASSERT.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Since you like STRATFOR 5/30/2009 3:52:20 PM

BAMS' Role in Furthering U.S. Naval Dominance

Summary

Unmanned aerial vehicles already have begun to fundamentally alter the way the U.S. Air Force, Army and Marine Corps do business. The Navy is next.

Analysis

The U.S. Navy is evaluating the RQ-4B Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for use under the Navy?s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, which seeks to capitalize on the current renaissance in the use of UAVs to improve intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) on the seas. BAMS will — or should — fundamentally alter the way the U.S. Navy does business.

ISR is about information — about knowing more than the enemy and leveraging that knowledge to allocate assets and project force as judiciously as possible. For decades, the aircraft carrier has been essential to this mission because it puts aircraft over the open ocean. The carrier battle group always had the best ISR because it could see the farthest.

That is now changing.

The BAMS program is destined to succeed in one form or another. The Global Hawk (and its competitor, the shorter-range MQ-9 Reaper) already is a proven and successful platform. As far as 1,200 nautical miles (nm) from its operating base, a Global Hawk can loiter for 24 hours before turning back, or it can stretch out beyond 5,000 nm to conduct pinpoint surveillance. With this range, five squadrons of Global Hawks operating simultaneously from five established air bases could cover every major maritime chokepoint and most of the world?s sea lines of communication. At each location, a squadron of five UAVs would ensure a constant presence of at least one patrol aircraft aloft.

MAP - Broad area maritime surveillance UAV coverage

(click image to enlarge)

The U.S. Air Force?s most recent contract to acquire such a squadron totaled less than $300 million. Meanwhile, relevant work on a radar program known as MP-RTIP (multi-platform radar technology insertion program) is poised to have a substantial impact on the Global Hawk?s surveillance capabilities. While some further development work would be needed for the MP-RTIP to play a maritime role, nothing radically new or unattainable stands in the way of the BAMS UAV. It integrates sensors already in development with a proven platform. Once combined with space-based assets, the Global Hawk in the BAMS role will offer an essentially unprecedented degree of situational awareness for the U.S. Navy.

Whether the goal is to keep tabs on a squadron of Chinese surface combatants, track a suspicious container ship from port to port, monitor piracy off the Somalian coast or assess the damage from a tsunami, BAMS will provide information. But the ability to respond to specific incidents at known locations is not its only attribute. The endurance of the Global Hawk allows it to search enormous areas — 40,000 square nautical miles in 24 hours — and provide constant monitoring of ongoing developments. With radar coverage high above the ocean, the Global Hawk also can spot unknown surface contacts for further investigation, or provide focused coverage based on current events and shifting threat levels. Ultimately, a squadron asset essentially can be anywhere in an assigned area of coverage in less than 10 hours — or nearly anywhere over the world?s oceans in roughly 16.

The ability to constantly monitor the fleets of Asian powers is vital, especially in an era when many of these fleets are growing. The BAMS UAV radar could even prove effective at spotting the periscope or snorkel of a submarine, although that will likely be the extent of its submarine-tracking ability in the near term. (Acoustic sensors beneath the surface remain essential to anti-submarine warfare.) But even plotting the position of a submarine snorkel in wide swathes of previously unobserved open ocean is an important improvement in ISR capacity. And surface ships will have nowhere to hide.

Of course, even heavily modified, the maritime variant of the Global Hawk will have little or no offensive capability. (The MQ-9 Reaper will retain a weapons-carrying capacity from its earlier variants.) The negative impact of external ordnance on fuel economy will likely keep the BAMS UAVs unarmed for their day-to-day work. In the future, though, an unmanned combat aerial vehicle with comparable endurance and an internal payload of anti-ship and air-to-air missiles is hardly out of reach — and the attractiveness of such a global presence is likely to justify the costs. In the meantime, the ISR allows the military to judiciously assign offensive assets, whether that be shore-based maritime patrol aircraft, ship-based MH-60R Seahawks or nearby submarines or surface combatants.

But this is only the beginning. Once the pilotless UAVs can be refueled (which eventually will include the transfer of oil) in midair, coverage will be measured in weeks and months rather than days.

The successful implementation of BAMS and follow-on programs will begin to create redundancies in areas of U.S. naval strategy, and thus challenge some of the Navy?s strongest traditions, including many of the roles played by the carrier fleet. Ultimately, however, BAMS will only strengthen the United States? global naval dominance.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Were we need to go... 5/30/2009 4:01:59 PM

-DA

Quote Reply

LB Every mission but air superiority 5/30/2009 10:22:49 PM

The nice little picture posted shows future UCAVs performing every mission possible other than air superiority. What decade this happens is an open question. What is not is clearly the lowered need for F-35's since eventually UCAVs perform all F-35 missions. The case for more F-22's and less F-35s could not be made more clearly. Except of course if one simply compares costs.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 5/31/2009 12:57:16 AM

last time I looked at the JSF partners, out of the 8/13 consortium, 7/10 were not american, and all of us were looking a JSF to pick up air superiority roles even if we had other assets available already in the role....

I do believe that the USAF needs to have the F-22 in that role, but I have difficulty in subcribing to the notion that the JSF will be unable to pick up the role - esp in other airforces.

eg, we know for a fact that the F-22 spiral development path was less than satisfactory against the JSF. we know that the through life support for JSF will be superior, and we know quite clearly that the USAF/Tri service ewarfare development path will be easier for JSF integration than the F-22. One of the things rapidly learnt from the from the F-22 program was an unfortunate development choke point in main systems. It will be far easier for JSF to pick up all of the US DoD comms and integration developments in the 2014-2025 vision than F-22 ever could. The reality is that the inability to easily integrate F-22 into those future programs does start to turn it into an expense liability.

its a great aircraft that was the last of the breed not built to take advanage of future proofing design principles (core processor and source code design being two issues).

instead of bagging the USG, someone should be hooking into LM for building in maint and development obsolesence....

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber gf reply, 5/31/2009 1:23:25 AM

Very good post you just placed but it does not really discuss the topic of the F22 v. F35 in context of today's political environment in the USA. The F22 was terminated now because the present Admin needed to take down an major project early in it's days to appease it's political base. The F35 will be terminated very early because the money is needed to appease this Admin's political base (they will wait a few months after the F22 controversy for appearances sake if that makes you feel better). We won't have either in numbers required for the missions we will likely face and the net cost for a F35 will be higher than the cost of the next F22 down the assembly line in May of 2009.

IMV it's better to have a few more F22s today and no F35s tomorrow than no more F22s today and no F35s tomorrow. Keep it simple. Allies don't matter here because it's domestic, its political, and did you think our current Admin would live up to any agreement with an outside interest? ("never waste a good crisis" ring any bells?)

Very sorry to be so blunt but we're screwed, our allies are screwed, and our enemies are currently lighting off nukes. What a party eh?

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

EvilFishy 5/31/2009 1:50:26 AM

---Rocky---This post does not support the thought process that the F22 can be safely reduced and the subject of payment for the F35 is simply answered for Evilfishy: we will borrow the money from our children's future earnings, savings, and jobs potential, or, we will print money and inflate our way through it until we destroy the US-$.---Hmm. So we can either borrow a **** load of money that must be repaid (WITH INTEREST) or PRINT a **** load of money that is really borrowed from the Federal Reserve and must be repaid (WITH INTEREST) as well while living with the destruction that occurs when we monetize the debt (inflation)?

Well damn. So in other words, no new F-22s, few F-35s (if any), and none of the entitlements I was promised?!

Say it ain-t so!

---Rocky---IMV it's better to have a few more F22s today and no F35s tomorrow than no more F22s today and no F35s tomorrow. ---Looks like the US Congress just bought a one way ticket up **** creek and all of us are coming along for the ride.

---Rocky---Very sorry to be so blunt but we're screwed, our allies are screwed, and our enemies are currently lighting off nukes. What a party eh? ---Understatement of the year.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 5/31/2009 1:57:13 AM

Keep it simple. Allies don't matter here because it's domestic, its political, and did you think our current Admin would live up to any agreement with an outside interest? ("never waste a good crisis" ring any bells?)

Very sorry to be so blunt but we're screwed, our allies are screwed, and our enemies are currently lighting off nukes. What a party eh?

Check Six

Rocky

well, I've always subscribed to the view that shortening the F-22 run was short sighted - and never subscribed to a view that it should have been made available to allies.... so the US needed to stay the big dog if it wanted to have dominance across any theatre where it participated.

as a cynic, I note that the very type on engagement that Gates is participating in is very similar to what we are seeing in Oz. All of the Service chiefs are playing nice as the choice is not to have a career.

I've been in Govt too long over a number of administrations to not know when silence is not agreement. I suspect that the US Service chiefs are travelling the same road.

Quote Reply

mustang22 5/31/2009 11:50:53 AM

Very sorry to be so blunt but we're screwed, our allies are screwed, and our enemies are currently lighting off nukes. What a party eh?

Check Six

Rocky

If I had to take a stab at it, I would say AF ends up with 700-800, Navy and Marines 400-500 and a cost per plane somewhere in the 180 million range. There will be a massive push to have cheaper unmanned aircraft performing the missions the F-35 was designed for long before they reach the current projected 2500 planes.

Quote Reply

warpig 5/31/2009 1:09:55 PM

If in 10-20 years we get to the point where we can field UCASs that can do some of the missions that we would be using F-35s for, but cheaper, then good--I hope we do stop the F-35 short and build those UCASs instead. In the meantime, there's no way we won't build at least 1500 F-35, and probably more like 2500+. Why do you guys think that the F-35 will be cut to pay for other non-military programs? Nothing will be able to pay for all the non-military programs. But apparently that's okay: the Obamination and the Demoncraps don't appear to care how many trillions they "borrow."

We can have guns *AND* butter... when we don't actually pay for either... yet.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 5/31/2009 5:51:45 PM

1. Don't try to twist what I say.

No one twisted what you said. Stop making this about you. I gave you a military professional's opinion of a STRATFOR article. You don't have to agree with that analysis but it is my opinion.

You have no professional opinion. That is part of the unjustified arrogance that gets you in trouble

2. Don't selectively misinterpret the Stratfor article, either. Basically it said that Gates is stick in an ostrich strategy fixated on the NOW, with no thought to the future SoD. The Air Force has to look at the future and it disagrees.

OK if that's how you wish to interpret it. But anyone who can read will see different. I'll let others make up there own minds. It clearly stated that the future is in UNMANNED TECHNOLOGIES.

That is not an interpretation that is what the author said. Claiming others will agree with you is the "appeal to the mob fallacy". Most of what I read suggests that they don't agree with you. They may not like what I have to say to you in rebuttal, poster, but generally through forty pages they think your arguments are meritless.

No, actually you didn't. And the F-22 is not designed to fight in the PACRIM against the 21st century requirements necessary to win tomorrows wars by itself.

Then you say the F-15 was even more useless? This is what I mean about you not having a professional opinion. You keep making assertions and call them facts. Gates, the cretin with whom you agree, bases a lot of his own stupid arguments on that we can use the F-15 to cover contingencies.

The P-2 is a MANNED platform. The P-8 is the US version coming on line. Shot that duck down.

BAMS. Nuff said

Nothing said as Heorot is fond of saying.

In effect your arguments and assertions just vanished in <150 words on the technical merits and FACTS. Didn't even work up a sweat.

No, just like the merchant for missiles idea, you have clung to your ideology and will not consider that perhaps you don't understand as much as you think.

Now that is a strawman and an ad hominem I can point out that you don't know the first thing about physics (proven) gun systems on boats and ships (proven). Naval matters (definitely proven) rockets (proven) or modern piracy (also proven). But then what has that to do with the F-22 and that you don't know about that subject?

Your assertions are not fact. You have an opinion, I have one, others have theirs. This isn't about "shooting down" others arguments. Again, DEBATE, don't ASSERT.

My facts are FACTS My opinions are opinions. There are NO ASSERTIONS made, for you see assertions are LIES.

Now we will deal with BAMS and why you are full of assertions as usual. BAMS can search oceans and detect surface traffic, but what can it do about it? Message back tracking data to the teeth arms? What if the link is jammed or fails? What then? What you don't know here is so glaringly and pathetically obvious......SEA SHIELD

When you have somethong worth saying navally, then you can say NUFF SAID, but until then, like your other assertions I will treat your naval assertions as just more words masking the FACT that you don't know what you are talking about.

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 5/31/2009 7:27:23 PM

Herald,

No offense but I'm moving on. It's not that serious.

-DA

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us