The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 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    To the poster.   6/1/2009 7:47:43 AM
Concession accepted.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    LB Reply   6/1/2009 8:01:03 AM

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.
Those UCAV's are creating the conditions that will allow MUCH SHORTER RANGED/ENDURANCE fighters to get close enough to do their jobs. This is something we can do in the next decade. MUST DO.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    How?   6/1/2009 8:06:45 AM



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.

Those UCAV's are creating the conditions that will allow MUCH SHORTER RANGED/ENDURANCE fighters to get close enough to do their jobs. This is something we can do in the next decade. MUST DO.




-DA 


The forward basing will not be there. 
 
 Herald
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/1/2009 8:11:11 AM

Concession accepted.

 

Herald




 
Classic response from either a complete ass-hole or complete bully, or both.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       6/1/2009 12:48:58 PM
Meanwhile, on the heels of that GAO report that says the F-35 program needs the F136 engine to maintain competition and lower future costs, here's another analysis that says if we don't kill the F136, the F-35 project will die.  This is really scary.
 
The reason it's scary is that according to this new analysis, the added cost of the F136 will force a reduction in LRIP aircraft procurement, which will drive the unit cost of the early aircraft up so high that it will become unaffordable for international partners.  So they'll pull out and the whole thing will collapse.
 
The F136 is not a whole lot of money in the context of the overall program.  If today, using the already-optimistic projections for the JSF program, the difference between life or death is the development cost of the F136, what happens down the road when glitches and design problems are found?
 
This is exactly what I've been saying all along.  The project's funding margins are so narrow that any added cost risks collapsing the entire thing.  And this is exactly why putting all our eggs in this basket is foolhardy.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       6/1/2009 12:53:12 PM
Following up to my last post.  The total development cost of the F136 engine is $2.4 billion.  The contract was awarded in '05 and scheduled to end in 2013, so an annual cost of $300 million.
 
Three hundred million dollars per year is the difference between success and failure of a tactical aircraft project that has completed less than 5% of its flight testing?  And people are still optimistic about this?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/1/2009 1:28:59 PM

Following up to my last post.  The total development cost of the F136 engine is $2.4 billion.  The contract was awarded in '05 and scheduled to end in 2013, so an annual cost of $300 million.

Three hundred million dollars per year is the difference between success and failure of a tactical aircraft project that has completed less than 5% of its flight testing?  And people are still optimistic about this?


No reason not to be. The F-35 is not an optional procurement decision at this point. Short of a critical design flaw, nothing is going to stop the F-35 from being procured to replace the F-Teens.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Addendum   6/1/2009 1:57:14 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.

Those UCAV's are creating the conditions that will allow MUCH SHORTER RANGED/ENDURANCE fighters to get close enough to do their jobs. This is something we can do in the next decade. MUST DO.  Especially in the case of the N-UCAS. Which are not tied to vulnerable fixed land bases. The same is true of the Super Hornet, Hornet, Harrier, Growler and F-35B/C. N-UCAS combined with a TLAM, NGB and legacy strategic bombers with associated support assets such as USAF tankers/Manned-Unmanned ISR will provide the bulk of the firepower necessary to sustain continuous air operations in the absence of land bases which would be under attack or threat of attack by conventional and/or WMD. We learned this in the early days of OEF.

The DoD has been prodded in the right direction. Once the senior leadership adjust and is replaced with todays officers and NCO's things will accelerate rapidly as a result of lessons we learned. Once industry completes the refocusing on 21st century style warfare the pace will pick up even more.  
 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       6/1/2009 2:14:39 PM




Concession accepted.



 



Herald











 

Classic response from either a complete ass-hole or complete bully, or both.



 

DAMN! You beat me to it!
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Predictions   6/1/2009 2:33:34 PM

Following up to my last post.  The total development cost of the F136 engine is $2.4 billion.  The contract was awarded in '05 and scheduled to end in 2013, so an annual cost of $300 million.

 

Three hundred million dollars per year is the difference between success and failure of a tactical aircraft project that has completed less than 5% of its flight testing?  And people are still optimistic about this?

No reason not to be. The F-35 is not an optional procurement decision at this point. Short of a critical design flaw, nothing is going to stop the F-35 from being procured to replace the F-Teens.
- DA 

Darth, specifically how many F35s do you predict the Obama Administration will fund? What is the minimum number required to at least reach the "high risk" profile of aircraft for each branch (the Obama Admin accepted the high risk assessment for the F22 so it stands to reason the F35 will be procured there, if it is procured at all).
 
My prediction is that the F35 program has a less than 50-50% chance of ever reaching maturity and having a militarily important number of aircraft operating. I am defining militarily important as comparable to other cutting edge US types: only about 60 F117's were built, only 20 or so B2s, and now only 187 F22s. Based upon history then, I feel justified in saying that the USAF gets fewer than 100 (if any), the USN the same (if any), and the USMC none. Allies? None and none. These aircraft will morph into a specialized attack platform to be used in high threat environs only ( a sort of high tech A-6 Intruder). It will be repackaged not as our all around replacement for the F16, F15C, or F15 Strike Eagles, but instead as a specialized attack platform and Wild Weasel Extraodinaire. The allies will be given the opportunity to buy F35s at the market price, what ever that ends up being with a total US buy of under 200 US aircraft (assuming the USN stays in the program just to get a "stealthy" aircraft.
 
Obama and Gates will justify the program cuts by saying that large numbers of these type of aircraft are simply no longer required. That, that was "yesterday's thinking" promoted by "Dick Cheney and the previous Administration" who was "Stuck in the Cold War" with these missions being performed now by UAVs.
 
The F35 will end up being a $300++ million a-piece bomb sled (because of smaller production runs) that won't meet our numbers needs for air superiority let alone Tac-air or CAS and will barely be able to function along side of the F22 in very high threat environments at about twice the cost of today's F22.
 
You have my prediction, what is yours?
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

SpudmanWP       6/1/2009 2:59:14 PM
So what do you think is going to happen as all those F-18's, AV-8Bs, F-16s and F-15s wear out?
 
Do you think that O, who has reversed his decision on Gitmo, wiretapping, etc when shown the facts, will get rid of a program that his own pet SecDev has said "was essential and needs to accelerated"?
 
Now I realize that all AC programs are planned based on today's tech and perceived threats.  The total orders for the JSF WILL CHANGE at some point in the future.  those changes, whether up or down, will not happen in a vacum and will be based on the needs of the day.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/1/2009 3:01:04 PM

Rocky,


My prediction is that the F-35 will be completely funded and the services will get at least 90% and maybe even more F-35's than planned. The Legacy fighters will be retiring and need replacement. The OPTEMPO of the DoD requires force levels to be about what they are for air power in regard to tactical fighters. I think the F-35, unlike the F-22, was built with cost as an important design parameter. If the cost skyrockets too much then Lockheed has failed to meet one of the most fundamental requirements for the platform. I think they understand the implications enough to keep it in check. The F-22 and B-2 on the other hand were built with the Cold War mentality of money is no object. They were also developed in the Black which makes cost higher and when revealed hits hard with sticker shock. In retrospect, I also agree with cutting B-2 numbers. It's a great bomber, but it's not affordable and maintenance sucks. This didn't fit well with the post Cold War peace dividend. Remember, you mention Dick Cheney, but it was he who started cutting Both Raptor and Spirit. The next few SecDefs simply increased those cuts as they saw the threats both aircraft were designed for change.


The threats the F-35 are designed to confront have not changed as much however. We will continue to engage in OIF and OEF. And there are no less than half a dozen other failed-rogue state scenarios that could pop up next decade. The F-35 will have plenty of work. 


The only way I see the F-35 getting cut, is if the Unmanned Aircraft technological progress really starts to take off. Because of built in institutional resistance, there will be a hesitancy to use these assets to their full potential. So I think the first half of next decade will be more of a look, see what I can do. And then as we go through the later half, the UAS will take even more responsibility and the old thinking will retire and die out. Officers and NCOs who have participated in the GWOT will and other 21st century conflicts will start to take more influence and legacy thinking dead weight will go extinct. Depending on how far the UAS are developed, it's quite possible that in the beginning of the 2020's, F-35 procurement is affected. A LOT OF WHAT MEN DO NOW in the cockpit can be done by machine. It's just cumbersome and not fully developed or refined yet. That's all going to change soon. 


So Rocky, in conclusion, I'd answer that current wars and old aircraft will limit any desire Obama may or may not have to cut the F-35. Opportunities to use UAVs as substitutes wont be available in numbers until well after Obama leaves office in 2016-2017 if he gets a second term. So for now, I'd say the F-35 is a relatively sure bet.


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/1/2009 9:18:05 PM

You are neither a bully nor an asshole and this site would lose a VERY valuable poster if you let others get to you. I have been an avid reader of this forum and others and unlike Rocky Mountain Climber, I look foward to threads you are on. Let Darth be Darth he will be judged based on his arguments and all you need to do is point out the facts. Suggestion-state what you need to state without using anything resembling anger. Like Rocky mtn climber said, you are great at research and can state a position based on cold hard logic and fact. Do that and that alone and your effectivness will increase. I think we need more F22's based on the LOGIC I have seen from numerous sources including yours.

 


Well, with some time to think about it, I regret making such a harsh judgement.  However, aside from those first couple words, the above poster is saying in spirit pretty much the same thing everyone else has been saying (probably even DA)--if you could lose your rude treatment of posters you don't agree with.  And I suggest to you that, while you may claim you only dispense facts and clearly-labeled opinions and you may have claimed (I don't particularly recall if you have or not) or may think that you are not unjustifibly rude, when so many posters can see that you are then maybe there is something in your style that you can not see entirely clearly for yourself.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/1/2009 11:24:21 PM
There is no reason two people can't post on a message board and not maintain mutual respect. I KNOW Warpig and I disagree on some very fundamental issues. I KNOW Rocky and I disagree on the current USG. There are many others I disagree with as well. Heck, look as BW and FS positions on French aircraft. We all manage to do this without getting personal. That's something we all need to self-enforce. Debating someone I disagree with is actually very fun. It's a give and take situation where at the end we all learn something. Allowing it to get personal completely takes the fun out of this.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/1/2009 11:29:50 PM




Following up to my last post.  The total development cost of the F136 engine is $2.4 billion.  The contract was awarded in '05 and scheduled to end in 2013, so an annual cost of $300 million.




Three hundred million dollars per year is the difference between success and failure of a tactical aircraft project that has completed less than 5% of its flight testing?  And people are still optimistic about this?







No reason not to be. The F-35 is not an optional procurement decision at this point. Short of a critical design flaw, nothing is going to stop the F-35 from being procured to replace the F-Teens.




-DA 

There is a difference between optimism and reality Darth. Along the way this may turn out to be a much bigger battle than we are seeing with the F-22. If you think about it, post Reagan what major weapons program has come in at budget and not been drastically cut? When do the international partners become fed up with the delays and cost increases? I would go as far as to say Rocky's prediction is much more realistic than optimistically saying we get anything close to 2500.
 
We are victims of our own design. Never settling on 2nd best no matter what the cost is finally starting to catch up with us. Our military deserves the best but until the American public says no to the top dollar free agent mentality, we continue to spend more money, accrue debt and eventually will implode.
 
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