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       5/29/2009 4:20:07 PM
Hmmm lets see. In the post where I was talking about development cost but got accused of something else...


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 
 

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 
 


 ...now the Herald acknowledges  I was talking about Dev cost See below...
 

Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Wrong.   5/29/2009 5:07:09 PM

Hmmm lets see. In the post where I was talking about development cost but got accused of something else...


































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 
 













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.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/29/2009 5:11:11 PM
Null Content as usual.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/29/2009 5:13:45 PM
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 
 

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.
 

Herald12345       5/29/2009 5:30:14 PM

Null Content as usual.




-DA 

That's all you got? Been caught in your own prevarication and that is your "answer"?
 
Do better. The next time you try to twist someones' words to score scholastic points instead of to advance a coherent fact based argument I'll remind you that you cannot misrepresent yourself  like that.
 
As for null content, that about describes half of what you posted on topic including your citations..
 
Herald
 
  
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/29/2009 5:35:31 PM

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.

OK, so the Clinton Administration went from 648 to 339. My numbers were off by ~50. The point remains the F-22 has been controversial for a long time. Even before the FY10 budget. That was the overriding point. As for LM's decision not to lobby for more, they still have the F-35 to think about. They want to keep their customer happy. They're not about to risk the bigger buy for 60 more F-22s. That is a business decision, not a decision based on national security.

 

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.

So if the boss says we're going with the high risk buy of 183 F-22s then the uniformed officer will follow, even if it is against their best military judgement. They also won't fight it publicly when ordered not to.

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

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reality   5/29/2009 5:45:08 PM
EVEN LOCKHEED doesn't want to fight for more BenelliM4. Think about that
 
No what they said is THIS:
 
 

Lockheed Won?t Fight Pentagon on F-22 Plan

Bruce L. Tanner, the company?s chief financial officer, told stock analysts that the company had received ?a full hearing? from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates... and top Air Force... officials, and ?we?ll accept those decisions.?

Mr. Tanner made the comments in discussing the company?s first-quarter results. Net income fell nearly 9 percent, to $666 million, or $1.68 a share, compared with $730 million, or $1.75 a share, in the period a year earlier, the company said.

Lockheed Martin, the nation?s largest military contractor, said growing pension costs had cut into its profit. But it still beat analysts? consensus forecast of $1.64 a share. Sales rose 4 percent, to $10.4 billion, just below the analyst forecast of $10.5 billion.

Legislators from Georgia, Connecticut and other states with major suppliers are still likely to push for more planes, saying they are concerned about job losses.

Mr. Tanner said that under previous contracts, F-22s would be assembled at Lockheed Martin?s plant in Marietta, Ga., until 2012. He added that most of the workers there would be able to shift to expanding production lines for other planes.

Mr. Tanner also disputed a report in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that said computer hackers had downloaded ?sizable amounts? of data on a program to build another fighter plane, the F-35, from the computer systems of two or three of the contractors.

Lockheed Martin is also the prime contractor for that plane. Mr. Tanner said that the company thought the article ?was incorrect in its representation of successful cyberattacks on the F-35 program.?

?I?ve not heard of that, and to our knowledge there?s never been any classified information breach,? he told the analysts.

When asked about cyberattacks on the F-35 program, Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, ?I?m not aware of any specific concerns.?
 
====================================
 
In other words; LM were told by GATES that he was ending the program. They have to play ball for contracts with that bozo still in charge, so when he told them "to shut up or else", they shut up.
 
They still have their tame congressmen...............
 
Herald
 
   
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/29/2009 5:47:48 PM


That's all you got? Been caught in your own prevarication and that is your "answer"?

Do better. The next time you try to twist someones' words to score scholastic points instead of to advance a coherent fact based argument I'll remind you that you cannot misrepresent yourself  like that.

As for null content, that about describes half of what you posted on topic including your citations..  
Herald


 

  
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/29/2009 5:55:26 PM
Benellim4,

OK, so now it's official that we both disagree on the threats and appropriate numbers of Raptors.  Can you make a case for more is the question? Thus far you haven't other than generalities. Try it...;)

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       5/29/2009 6:43:21 PM
OK, so now it's official that we both disagree on the threats and appropriate numbers of Raptors.  Can you make a case for more is the question? Thus far you haven't other than generalities. Try it...;)
 
-First and foremost, we are limited to generalities here because the nature of the information for more, based on threat capabilities, is classified. The USAF has already examined not just the risk today, but the risk in 10 years, 20 years and 30 years based on threat platforms. You won't see that in the press for good reason.
 
There are some common sense things we can talk about.

Attrition. If for no other reason, we need more because we will no doubt need more numbers to keep the ones we have flying. Whether that is from accidents or simply because we will eventually draw the numbers down and use the retired airframes for parts, attrition will mean we will have less F-22s flying in 10 years than we do now.
 
Risk. The F-35 program, while I'm hopeful, still has significant risk attached to it. I think the F-35 will do fine in the air to air role, no F-22, but certainly no slouch either. That means nothing if costs spiral. As the GAO notes the program is entering a very risky stage.  According to the GAO numbers we're looking at a total cost of $300 billion for 2,456 aircraft. That is $122 million a copy. Not too far from the $145 million current cost for the F-22. Now what happens if it hits a snag? What happens if defense suffers from more cuts? What happens if the 2456 number gets reduced? Cost increases. 

The fact of the matter is SecDef is placing a very large bet on F-35. One that might work, but as the USAF notes, it's a high risk bet. If it doesn't pay off, it will cost lives. Not just lives of Airmen, but lives of Soldiers who depend on the Airmen to keep the skies free of enemy aircraft.
 
 
 
 
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