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    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 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

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 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.


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.


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.


 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
 
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
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