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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020
Phaid    2/15/2010 4:53:17 PM
The US Air Force (USAF) has revealed a raft of fighter, strike, transport, special mission and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development programmes in a 30-year plan released in February. The proposals were included within the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Aircraft Investment Plan covering the period between FY11-FY40 that it submitted for the first time in February as part of the FY11 budget request. Under the plan, USAF expects to allocate funding to initiate the development of replacements for both the Lockheed Martin F-22 multirole fighter and C-5 Galaxy strategic transport aircraft by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw100215_1_n.shtml
 
Quote    Reply

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 24   NEXT
DarthAmerica       2/21/2010 11:46:09 AM
I'd really prefer not to argue just for the sake of it. I asked  
specific questions about what you disagree with. Since you can't  
answer those questions then there's nothing further to discuss and I'm  
not going to qubble with you or indulge in an ego contest. Again,

1. Do you agree that we don't need more F-22s?
2. Do you agree steps have been taken to get more if we do?
3. Do you agree the USAF has other priorities including the F-35  
besides procuring F-22s?

Those are extremely simple and direct questions that could be answered  
with a yes or no. It seems from your post in this thread that your  
answer for all three questions are yes. In not, clarify. Otherwise  
let's not inflict ourselves on the thread with a needless arguement  
just for the sake of it.

-DA



 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       2/21/2010 12:53:26 PM

I'd really prefer not to argue just for the sake of it. I asked  
specific questions about what you disagree with. Since you can't  
answer those questions then there's nothing further to discuss and I'm  
not going to qubble with you or indulge in an ego contest. Again,

Your demands concern me not at all. You haven't even framed proper questions, you are so far off the reservation into the non relevant that it is pathetic. QED, kumquat.
 
 
1. Do you agree that we don't need more F-22s?
 
Not relevant. We aren't going to get them, so its a dead issue. How's that for a reality check?  

2. Do you agree steps have been taken to get more if we do?
 
No. Congress can pass whatever crap they like, but legislation does not translate into capability. A civil example is the so called economic recovery act. Looks good when you read it, but the technical reality is startling different as most of the money spent is wasted  and the projects claimed do not exist. Mothballing an aircraft assembly line does not constitute an ability to resume production, as I already demonstrated, if you had bothered to pay attention.   

3. Do you agree the USAF has other priorities including the F-35  
 besides procuring F-22s?

Utterly irrelevant. I KNOW what those priorities are. You don't. Even told you what they specifically were when you didn't know what they were or didn't conceive some needs you overlooked.


Those are extremely simple (complex) and direct (badly structured) questions that could be answered  with a yes or no.(detailed plain language explanation that overflew your head)  It seems from your post in this thread that your  answer for all three questions are yes. In not, clarify. Otherwise  let's not inflict ourselves on the thread with a needless arguement just for the sake of it.

You had better read my answers again or are you just too prideful and stubborn to admit that you missed what I specifically said about the F-22, the YF-23,  the F-35, and the reasons behind them and what went  wrong with each, specifically, and why what you argue was buckshot nonsense from a guy who knows less about aviation in general and industrial technology trees, than I know about tiddly winks.           
 
So..... no your questions  aren't relevant to topic, nor are they sinple yes or no, and no you did not understand what I plainly said at all, or you wouldn't have framed your questions on the wrong issues here, or in such an incompetent fashion, in a desperate attempt to not look as wrong as you now plainly do.
 
-DA







Spare me your pretensions, will you? This is no contest in  rhetoric or I'm right/your wrong. This is a discussion about airpower and actual procurement decisions, about which you are demonstrably essentially as klueless as the klown klub. 
 
Reality is that the F-35 is it for manned tac-air. Its what we have. The legacy frames we have have no more growth and no hours left. New builds means new electronics and new tweaks to them to use the next generation weapons coming in 2018. The only two new builds from the legacy tech tree worth that considerable R&D investment to bring them up to the next standard are the Beagle and the Super Hornet. I think that's money wasted in those manned aircraft as they will cost as much as an F-35 so fitted apiece to fit them out to the expected new weapon system standards.
 
But what do I know about that, alleged air-power expert? 
 
<
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Apologies....   2/21/2010 12:59:09 PM

God, I wish SYSOPS would just bite the bullet and *permanently* ban posters who can't stop being needlessly antagonistic and insultingly condescending toward other posters.
But I''m not trying to be impolite. I'm simply trying to set the record straight as to what I exactly said..  
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Hamilcar   2/21/2010 1:50:00 PM
So in other words, you agree/acknowledge and have essentially said the same things with the addition of the love notes. Thanks! 


Wow 
-DA


 
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       2/21/2010 6:08:49 PM
y'all got my vote there - bores me senseless :(

Ian

 
God, I wish SYSOPS would just bite the bullet and *permanently* ban posters who can't stop being needlessly antagonistic and insultingly condescending toward other posters.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   2/21/2010 7:53:38 PM
"My back hurts so that I can hardly sit at my computer so let me just  
say this."

Nichevo, sorry about your back. That sucks...

RE: F-22 production...

Industry has no problem with knowledge retention. What's not retained  
would be addressed with modern knowledge anyway. Perhaps ideally. The  
whole issue of knowledge retention was a poison pill injected into the  
debate almost without cause. If we started making more F-22's it would  
almost certainly happen next decade. The F-22 would still be in  
service, relatively new and could be returned to production.

By 2025-2030 well see F-X IOC. So unless the F-22 needed to return to  
production before 2015 then it wouldn't make much sense considering  
the F-35 will be reaching IOC and F-X kicking off shortly there after.

You made the following statement...

"3)  Armor never won a war!  In the race between armor and warhead,  
warhead always wins."

You also mentioned WWII. I don't necessarily disagree but I'd say  
people have certainly lost for lack of armor. Armor these days being  
electronic mostly anyway. Also one needs to factor in the effects of  
public perception to casualties. So do not under estimate the value of  
armor.

You asked...

"Any ideas for more effective offensive and intel tools, for the  
grunts now? Logistics maybe?  Off-road transport so everyone isn't  
canalized into predictable IED-bait routes?"

Sure, ideas a plenty. But at the end you run into the issue of  
efficiency. You've got to move an enourmous amount of men and material  
very efficiently to sustain the ground components. Ships and trucks  
are the only way to do that. The latter of which has to be light  
enough to efficiently move cargo without damaging roads. Off road  
solutions are okay for short distances but ultimately need to tie into  
high speed avenues of approach. After OIF ends I'll tell you about  
something we did that amazes me to this day and saved so many lives  
you wouldn't believe it! As far as intel goes are getting there. But  
it's going to be a while before we finish that. An organization like  
the DoD is huge and when it spends 50 years building itself to fight  
Soviets. There's a lot of institutional resistence to change. That's  
why I told the Krasnovia story. It's why a whole lot of people were  
turned into sinophobes. They(PRC) were familiar. But a new generation  
of officers, NCOs and civilian leadership are slowly taking charge.  
This is one of the great things about SecDef Gates and the POTUS to  
keep him. Look at his choices for USAF CoS. Not necessarily the man  
but the career path. Expect to see a lot of improvement in the DoD  
ability to handle 21st century battlefields over the coming decade.

Another question you asked...

"How about a better rifle?  A better cartridge?  An alternative?  Gee,  
maybe the fighter mafia has been holding out on the troops for a  
proper 6.5-7mm long arm?  Not enough effort on the brass' part?"

We don't care about a new caliber. What we have now is fine. You know  
who complains about caliber? Civilians usually who don't have the  
first idea about shooting people. That or industry who have financial  
interest.

The truth is that not much has changed with basic firearms  
technologies in about 60+ years tangibly speaking. We have a few  
things coming soon that will integrate "smart" technologies into our  
fire control and target aquisition methods. But other than that we  
haven't reached a point where a paradigm shift could occur. Changing  
to some other caliber besides 5.56mm right now would be like putting  
money in a toilet.

Your last question...

"But explain to me, in the history of COIN, when anyone ever had the  
advantage of having bullets and bombs bounce off them?  Then maybe you  
can explain the leap in physics that will ever enable this in future."

It happens now. The armor soldiers use now is a major improvement over  
the past and it's saved countless lives. Before I fought with it, I  
hated my armor. Now, I would not want to fight anywhere without it.

-DA

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       2/22/2010 9:54:12 AM
We don't care about a new caliber. What we have now is fine. You know  
who complains about caliber? Civilians usually who don't have the  
first idea about shooting people. That or industry who have financial  
interest.

 
DA,
 
5.56mm is OK, not great for engagement up to 300 meters and certaintly not ideal by any stretch. The M4 is a maintenance nightmare but money and its adaptability to the current force requirements of weight, training, and modernization have kept it alive. Spec Ops is usually looking for more knock down power and thousands of M14's have been brought back into service for longer range engagement. While I think the 7.62mm is too big for an all-around battle rifle, a 6.5mm in AR sytle rifle with a redesigned gas system would be a much better choice. It's not just civilians who complain about caliber, I have heard as far back as Somalia that more rds are required to do the job and have many friends in the business who are less than thrilled with the 5.56mm. I have seen it with the right bullet make some pretty nasty wounds up close, but out to distance it sheds velocity very fast and lacks sufficient terminal performance as well as exterior ballistics.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       2/22/2010 11:21:22 AM

We don't care about a new caliber. What we have now is fine. You know  

who complains about caliber? Civilians usually who don't have the  

first idea about shooting people. That or industry who have financial  

interest.



 

DA,

 

5.56mm is OK, not great for engagement up to 300 meters and certaintly not ideal by any stretch.

Says who? Did you read that somewhere on the internet? And what makes you think 300 meters if the limit? You did say "up to". 300 meters is the shooters limit, not the bullet which I assure you will fly much further and kill. None of what you wrote in that sentence above matches what I've seen done with 5.56mm in combat.

 The M4 is a maintenance nightmare but money and its adaptability to the current force requirements of weight, training, and modernization have kept it alive. 

Another common myth. It is no more a maintenance hassle for a trained operator than all of the other fire arms I've had to work with which includes the AK-47. What as kept the M-16 series alive is outstanding engineering and design. No other weapons out there make the switch worth it for some marginal improvement.

Spec Ops is usually looking for more knock down power and thousands of M14's have been brought back into service for longer range engagement. 

Special Ops has a different mission which rarely involves direct combat with conventional force structures. They also use a variety of weapons and calibers depending on the mission. There is no one caliber they prefer because their mission requirements change too often which is why they have more options with individual weapons. They also use 9mm MP-5's too. 


While I think the 7.62mm is too big for an all-around battle rifle, a 6.5mm in AR sytle rifle with a redesigned gas system would be a much better choice.

Not worth it. The 5.56mm round is good enough and switching to a non NATO standard has cost, training and logistics issues that out weigh any miniscule increase in ballistic performance.

 It's not just civilians who complain about caliber, I have heard as far back as Somalia that more rds are required to do the job and have many friends in the business who are less than thrilled with the 5.56mm. I have seen it with the right bullet make some pretty nasty wounds up close, but out to distance it sheds velocity very fast and lacks sufficient terminal performance as well as exterior ballistics.

It is a myth. I've dealt with this many times before. I've served with a lot of the men who fought in Somalia and caliber had little to do with it. It's shot placement. Humans are tough targets and you have to strike a critical part of the body if you want immediate incapacitation. More rounds were required because when you are under stress doing the pray and spray under stress trying to suppress a target your bullets aren't striking center mass where they need to in order to quickly kill/incapacitate. I've shot people with rounds as big as .50 cal and not be immediately incapacitated and I know that the most important thing when shooting living targets is to place the bullet somewhere important where it takes out the CNS, heart or breaks a critical bone structure. Otherwise there is no such thing as "sufficient terminal performance". I learned that lesson the hard way the first time I shot a man. Humans are unbelievably hard to kill with firearms small enough to be carried. I'm not saying 5.56mm is the end all be all in bullet technology. Just that nothing else justifies a switch and you would only get a marginal benefit if at all. You reach a margin of diminishing returns with bullets especially considering the restrictions on how they are built for war. 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Mustang   2/22/2010 11:26:00 AM
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       2/22/2010 12:13:38 PM
DA,
 
I'm not able to open the link at work, so I will take a look tonight, but maybe you could answer a question for me. Why did the military take a very effective .45 caliber handgun and replace it with a 9mm?
 
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 24   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics